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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: votes are recorded as crowd feedback and are rate-limited per client IP, and note length is capped at 1000 characters.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then the enum semantics, then constraints and exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the actionable constraints (enum meaning, note limit, rate limit, excluded report types). Only scan_id's expected format and any success/failure behavior are left unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: it defines what each report_type enum value means and states that report_details is optional with a 1000-character limit. scan_id is left implicit but is self-evident from context.

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 ('Vote on a scan') and anchors it to the concrete UI actions 'Mark as Safe'/'Mark as Malicious', then maps each enum value to its semantic effect. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like submit_scan or get_scan_reports without opening either 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?

Explains the context in which this tool applies (crowd feedback voting on an existing scan) and explicitly excludes the other report types ('phishing, spam, copyright ... are not available here'), which is a useful when-not. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those excluded cases.

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