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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_token>'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that this is a mutating operation that will send a proposal to residents, nor does it mention reversibility, response format, or any side effects beyond the action itself. The description gives a bare functional statement without deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is stated first, followed by the authentication requirement. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It does not clarify that the two modes are mutually exclusive (new proposal vs. voting) or that either body/title or proposal_id/stance must be provided. It also does not describe what happens after proposing (e.g., notification to residents) or the expected response. While the schema hints at these, the description could be more complete for a tool with multiple modes.

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 already documents all five parameters with their purposes. The description adds minimal extra meaning by implicitly linking 'body' and 'title' to new proposals and 'stance' and 'proposal_id' to voting, but these are also clear from the schema descriptions. The description does not introduce any new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 primary actions: creating a rule or resource-share proposal, and recording support/opposition on an existing one. It specifies the resource ('rule or resource-share proposal') and the verb ('put' / 'record'), and distinguishes two distinct use cases, making the purpose unambiguous without needing to inspect 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., ask_habitat_question, post_talk). It does not mention any prerequisites beyond authentication, nor does it state when not to use it or which alternative to choose for other actions. The context of proposing a rule is implied but never made explicit in terms of alternatives.

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