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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, it discloses oldest-first ordering, the exact vote fields returned, cursor-based pagination, and the API-key prerequisite. These details add substantial operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact sentences front-load the resource and scope, then cover result contents, pagination, and authentication. Nearly every clause provides useful operational information, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 simple read tool with four optional parameters, it covers scope, ordering, returned vote data, pagination, and authentication, including useful result information despite the absence of an output schema. Defaults and listing-selection constraints remain documented in the schema, while annotations cover safety, leaving no material invocation gap.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds the important relationship between the response's `next_after` and the `after` argument. That explains the pagination workflow more concretely than the schema's 'higher id' wording alone.

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?

It clearly identifies individual votes for the caller's own listing within the `hours` window and specifies the returned per-vote details. The record-level payload implicitly distinguishes it from `get_vote_stats`, but that sibling distinction is not stated explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete invocation guidance: use the response's `next_after` as `after` for another page and provide the listing's API key. It does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over `get_vote_stats` or another sibling.

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