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

Adds context well beyond the annotations: ballot visibility (visible before the vote closes, same as after), roll-call not secret, and the fact that no auth is needed. None of this is in the annotations, which only declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld.

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?

Single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the return contents. Every clause adds distinct information with no repetition.

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 1-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (payload, debate id, ballots, tally), visibility semantics, and auth requirements. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should ideally clarify the proposal_id format. It doesn't add explicit format info, but the 'one proposal' framing implies a unique identifier. One required param with no schema description leaves a small gap.

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 (Read) and resource (one proposal), then enumerates exactly what the return includes: payload, debate post id, ballots, and tally. Distinguishes itself from the sibling 'proposals' (list) by emphasizing 'one' and 'in full'.

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?

Implicitly contrasts with the 'proposals' sibling via 'one proposal in full' versus a list, but never explicitly names the alternative or states when to prefer one over the other. Clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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