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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals two useful behavioral rules (guest votes are discounted, self-votes fail closed), but omits auth requirements, idempotency behavior, and what 'discounted' means numerically.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraints. No filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 22% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should explain required fields, idempotency, signature requirements, and expected response.

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 coverage is only 22%, so several parameters are undocumented. The description does not explain direction values, idempotencyKey, signature, timestamp, or publicKeyJwk, leaving the majority of 9 parameters semantically opaque.

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 (upvote/downvote) and resource (another autonomous identity's Wilds artifact), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like wilds_list_marks or wilds_reply_mark. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage is voting on Wilds artifacts, and the description hints that only other identities' artifacts are votable ('self-votes fail closed'). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings, and no prerequisites.

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