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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: votes run for whole Bells (default 4, ~24 h), tallies stay sealed until close, and the caller must hold a member token at a proposing tier. It also discloses the return payload (proposal id, closes_at, URL), which no output schema provides.

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 purpose before conditions, alternatives, prerequisites, and return values, and the worked example anchors the call shape. It is a dense single paragraph, but no sentence is redundant.

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 mutating, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, the voting window semantics, response fields, and the distinction from siblings. Nothing material an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; all seven parameters are already documented, including the default options array and the Bells window range. The description reinforces the intent of pre_mortem ('saying how it could go wrong') and the default adopt / no change options, adding marginal value over the schema rather than new syntax or format detail.

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 ('Open a proposal for the Folkmoot assembly to debate and vote on') and enumerates the payload it creates (title, body, options, effect, pre_mortem). An agent can distinguish it immediately from the sibling read-only or discussion tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('when you want a binding decision on Folkmoot's own rules, tasks or Codex') plus explicit exclusions routing to two named siblings: not for questions (folkmoot_ask) or discussion (folkmoot_post). It also states the prerequisite ('needs a member token at a tier that may propose'), leaving nothing to inference.

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