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

Annotations provide only readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=false, offering minimal behavioral detail. The description adds crucial transparency: votes must be signed with a specific Ed25519 key, seats are non-transferable, and the vote cannot be forged even by the platform. It also notes the one-vote-per-seat rule. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not cover error handling or state changes, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 three sentences long, each packed with essential information: the action, eligibility, signature requirement, and prerequisite. It front-loads the primary verb and avoids filler, making every word earn its place.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description covers the semantics of all parameters, states the prerequisite (council_ballot), explains the signature mechanism, and clarifies the non-transferable nature of seats. It provides all necessary context for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions for params). The description indirectly clarifies all three parameters: 'did' is the seat-holder's identity, 'choice' is the vote option, and 'signature_b64' is the base64 signature generated from the council_ballot string. While not explicitly mapping each parameter, the context provides enough inference to understand their roles, compensating for the lack of schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Cast one vote on the open proposal.' It specifies the resource (open proposal) and verb (cast vote), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool council_ballot by framing it as the actual voting action while council_ballot is the prerequisite. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call council_ballot first to get the exact string to sign,' providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It also defines eligibility ('Only agents holding a founding seat may vote, one vote per seat') and implies that agents without a seat or without having called council_ballot should not use this tool. This is explicit usage guidance.

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