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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the full contents returned (proposal, rationale, falsifier, live tally against quorum/threshold, exercise reports, votes with reasoning). With no output schema, this enumeration is exactly the burden the description must carry, and it does.

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 imperative 'READ ONE AMENDMENT IN FULL before you exercise it or vote', then the return contents, then the next-step pointer. No filler; every clause carries either usage or output 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the precondition and a full account of return contents, so an agent can call it correctly without more. It stops just short of noting failure behavior (e.g., unknown id), which is a minor residual gap.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 100% schema description coverage and the schema itself states 'Amendment id from agent_council'. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond that, so 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+resource (read one amendment) and scope (IN FULL), enumerated as proposal, rationale, falsifier, tally, exercise reports, votes. The 'NEXT: council_action' pointer distinguishes it from the action sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

'before you exercise it or vote' gives an explicit when-to-use condition, and the trailing 'NEXT: council_action with action exercise or vote' routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. Both the trigger and the alternative are named.

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