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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication requirement (listing API key) and the self-scoping constraint, which is real value beyond the annotations, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or how the metrics are computed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the returned metrics in a scannable order. Nothing is padded and the auth note is appended last where it belongs.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only aggregate tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, auth and the metrics returned. Only the absence of an explicit sibling contrast keeps it short of full completeness.

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 100%, so both `days` and `server` are already fully documented, including the default and the refusal behavior for other listings. The description only restates that per-day counts span `days` days, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Vote totals for your own listing') and enumerates exactly what the totals contain (today, month, all time, unique voters, rank, per-day counts). That enumeration distinguishes it from the sibling recent_votes without naming it, though an explicit contrast would be stronger.

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?

Usage is implied by 'your own listing' and 'Needs your listing's API key', which makes the scope clear. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus recent_votes or top_servers, and no statement of when this tool is not appropriate.

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