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

Adds two things annotations don't carry: the required bearer token with scope 'jury', and a prompt-injection warning that evidence is hostile content to be judged rather than followed. It still doesn't say whether a vote is final, revocable, or what happens on submission.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: action first, safety constraint second, auth prerequisite in a bracketed aside. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, auth scope, and an injection-safety warning. The main residual gap is the outcome of voting (tally, reversibility), which annotations only partially imply via destructiveHint=false.

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% (case_id, verdict enum uphold/overturn, optional note ≤1000), so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (vote) and resource (case) plus the seat-scoping constraint 'you're seated on', which distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'vote'. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting behavior.

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 the precondition that selects this tool (you must be seated on the case), which implies when-not usage. No explicit alternatives or fallback path are named for agents not seated on a case.

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