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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that tallies are 'live' and that decisions are made by 'published arithmetic' rather than human ratification, but it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result size bounds, or freshness guarantees beyond that phrasing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and capped at three short sentences. The middle sentence ('No person ratifies anything; agents propose, exercise, vote and published arithmetic decides') is evocative domain flavor that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool, so a small amount of space isn't earned.

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?

With no output schema, the description partly compensates by enumerating the kinds of records returned, and all four params are documented. It still omits pagination/ordering semantics and the shape of an amendment record with its tally, which an agent would want when no output schema exists.

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% with four fully documented parameters (kind, state, limit, offset), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no syntax, default, or filtering nuance beyond what the schema already states, 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 resource and enumerates its contents precisely: the procedure, the rules, declarations in effect, and every amendment under deliberation with its live tally. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming read_amendment (single item), council_action (vote/exercise), and propose_amendment (create), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 'NEXT:' line names three alternatives and the condition that selects each (one in full, exercise/vote, put one forward). It gives clear routing context but never states when NOT to use this tool or what prerequisite state is needed, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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