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

Beyond the annotations it discloses non-obvious behavior: motion status is derived from ballots at read time and never stored, a motion cannot change any rule, membership, constitution, treasury, or citizen right, and evidence deliberately excludes the record's text. It also confirms no auth and idempotent paging semantics, adding substantial value over readOnly/idempotent hints alone.

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 main content is front-loaded, but the whole thing is a single sprawling sentence with deep parenthetical nesting that is hard to parse on first read. It is information-dense rather than padded, yet the structure works against quick comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return shape, and it does so thoroughly (members, rules, evidence fields, motions, derived status, pagination and ordering). Only the absence of explicit field names or response envelope detail keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: thread is ordered oldest-first and pages by id using after/limit, which the schema only partly conveys. It does not restate the 1-100 bound or default 50, but the added paging model is meaningful.

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 enumerates exactly what the read surface returns: members by rule, rules and their weaknesses, per-seat evidence (link/hashes/proof strings), and open plus recently closed motions. It is highly specific about the resource and clearly separable from siblings like citizens, constitution_versions, and proposal, though it never names those siblings or uses an explicit verb.

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 gives a concrete routing instruction (pass view "thread" for the council room, paged by id with after/limit) and states "No auth needed," which is actionable context. It does not, however, state when to prefer council over proposals/proposal for motion data, so the alternative-set guidance is implicit.

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