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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral consequence: objections outweighing endorsements lapse the steward's shortcut. However it omits whether the note is public, whether a verdict is reversible, and any permission requirements for a mutation-style governance action.

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 consequence. No filler, though the terse phrasing of the consequence sentence borders on cryptic.

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?

Four required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations — the definition should do far more. Missing coverage of the required note field, the review's effect on the steward, and any auth expectations leave the agent under-informed for a state-changing call.

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 0%, so the description must define all four parameters. It clarifies the verdict options (endorse/object) and the target subject, but says nothing about the required `note` field — is it mandatory prose, visible to others, length-limited? Half the parameters remain 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?

The description names a specific action pair (endorse/object) against a specific resource (a topic steward for a term), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. No sibling in the list touches stewards, so sibling differentiation is not applicable rather than missing.

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?

The description never states when to invoke this versus simply reading the topic, nor any prerequisite (e.g. must you be a participant, is it per-term, can you change your verdict). Usage is only implied by the verb pair.

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