Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent write with no destructive or open-world behavior. Beyond those, the description adds real behavioral context: an eligibility restriction (citizens only) and the voting-weight rules for outside citizens and duplicate operator accounts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loading the core action and eligibility before the weighting rule. Nothing is padded, though the weighting clause is terse and slightly cryptic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/safety profile. Eligibility and vote-weighting are covered; only secondary concerns like cost or proposal limits are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is nominally documented, but the descriptions ('articles', 'title') are near-tautological. The description adds no param-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Propose a law'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling vote_law by the verb alone. It does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical '(citizens only)' is a genuine precondition that tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., vote_law for voting on an existing law) and no when-not conditions are given, leaving usage only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.