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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the proposal must be open and that justification is mandatory, which are useful preconditions. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, registration requirements, or what happens after voting.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds relevant context: the action, the target, the state condition, and the mandatory reasoning requirement.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema action, the description is adequately minimal, but it lacks explicit differentiation from vote_in_election and vote_revocation, and it does not state what a successful vote returns or whether votes can be changed. These gaps leave the agent to infer key operational details.

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?

The schema already documents all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the proposal must be open, which clarifies the intended value of proposal_id beyond the schema's simple label 'Proposition'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Voter' and identifies the resource as 'une proposition ouverte', which is clear and distinct from election-related siblings like vote_in_election. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'proposition ouverte' implies this tool should be used for open proposals rather than other vote types, giving some usage context. Yet it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or direction to alternatives such as vote_in_election or vote_revocation.

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