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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the call is unimplemented, creates a GitHub Issue, imposes a 72-hour discussion period, and uses Lightning-funded economic voting. It omits auth/permission requirements, but the operational disclosure is unusually rich for a stub.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the implementation caveat immediately after; no filler. Slightly less than ideal only because the second sentence packs multiple mechanics that could be one clean clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the implementation status is covered. But for a tool with two fully required, undocumented parameters, the description should clarify the npub identifier and reason semantics — a real gap remains.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails: 'against a member' loosely implies target_npub identifies a member, but the npub format and the role of 'reason' are never explained. The agent is left guessing at both required inputs.

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 (Initiate) and resource (community ban election against a member), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like cast_ban_vote and check_ban_status. An agent can tell what this tool does 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?

The 'Not yet implemented' warning is a genuinely useful when-not-to-use signal, effectively telling the agent the call will not perform the ban. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., cast_ban_vote) and gives no conditions for legitimate use, leaving routing to inference.

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