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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral rule — one vote per guarantor, not per agent — which is useful identity/scoping context. It does not state whether a vote can be changed, what happens if the instance is already closed, or whether the action is irreversible, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the constraint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is thin. It omits how to source istanza_id, the auth/role requirements behind the guarantor rule, vote reversibility, and error behavior for closed or already-voted instances.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly implies that istanza_id must reference an open instance; it says nothing about the accepted vote values (though the enum is self-evident) or how to obtain a valid istanza_id.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Vota") with a specific resource ("un'istanza aperta"), so the agent knows this casts a vote on an existing motion. It is distinguishable from read siblings like leggi_istanze and from proponi_istanza, but it never names those siblings to draw the line explicitly, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

"Un'istanza aperta" implies the precondition that the target instance must be open, and "un voto per garante, non per agente" constrains the caller. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do for closed instances) and no routing to alternatives such as leggi_istanze for inspecting instances before voting.

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