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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose extra behavioral traits: it mirrors /amendments.json, is not third-party-naming, and is wrapped in the proof envelope. This is helpful, though 'proof envelope' and 'UNL-threshold' are left unexplained and no rate-limit or auth behavior is mentioned.

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?

The description is compact: a main result sentence, an endpoint mirror, a sibling distinction, and two short behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter data-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content, the endpoint it mirrors, and the key sibling distinction. It is slightly cryptic about 'proof envelope' and 'UNL-threshold,' but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the amendments block with per-amendment vote tallies.' It immediately distinguishes itself from get_amendment_status by noting that sibling is state-only and this tool adds live vote counts. An agent can tell exactly what data this tool returns.

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 explicitly names the sibling alternative and the difference: 'Distinct from get_amendment_status (state-only) — this tool adds live vote counts vs UNL-threshold per amendment.' This gives clear context for choosing between them, though it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use directive.

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