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

Annotations already declare a non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), but the description adds the critical operational consequence: there is no per-voter dedupe, so repeated calls inflate the count. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that prevents agent misuse.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and differentiator; the second sentence delivers the essential usage constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, the key alternative, and the non-idempotent behavior. Given the simple one-parameter surface, no critical information is missing.

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% and the only parameter is a string request_id. The description compensates by identifying the target as an existing feature request, but does not specify format, source, or failure behavior. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 ('Add one vote') and resource ('feature request'), and distinguishes it from creating a duplicate. The 'me too' signal clarifies the intent for an existing request.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for something already filed rather than creating a duplicate, and provides a negative guideline: call once per distinct person/session, not repeatedly for the same requester. Although it does not name the sibling file_feature_request, the alternative is unambiguous from context.

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