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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries less safety burden. It still adds meaningful behavior: 'Settled only: pending seals carry no score and none is shown,' and it explains that open_seats is minepoa's public count read by POAScan once per epoch in the background, current segment only.

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 dense but front-loads the primary return fields before moving to the address-specific shape, settled-only caveat, and CSV path. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, though the single-paragraph structure makes the usage guidance slightly buried toward the end.

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 complex read tool with no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden. It enumerates the aggregate fields, describes the different shape when address is supplied, explains the settled-only rule and open_seats provenance, and notes the CSV endpoint.

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%, so the schema handles the baseline documentation for all six parameters. The description adds semantics the schema does not: with an address the result becomes per-close rows plus settled seats, and it clarifies that the open_seats count is current-segment-only and that segment 1 is archived with repeating epoch numbers.

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 states a very specific resource and return shape: settled jury seats per grader in a segment, including the exact aggregate fields. It also distinguishes the use case from siblings with 'Use it for a grader's track record or jury load.' An agent can tell what data this returns without opening the schema.

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 says 'Use it for a grader's track record or jury load,' which gives a clear selection context. It does not name a sibling tool to use instead for adjacent queries, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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