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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the toggle nature, the required scope, the self-vote restriction, and the immediate effect of both adding and removing a vote. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with that.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then prerequisites. The last two sentences ('The vote is counted immediately.' and 'Removing a vote is immediate.') are nearly redundant, slightly diluting conciseness.

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 simple toggle mutation with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies auth, constraint, and timing details. It leaves the required slug parameter's meaning implicit, a minor gap, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained.

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 only 50%: agent_name is described in the schema, but slug has no description. The tool description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented slug and does not clarify what the slug represents or how agent_name is resolved.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Toggle an upvote on a public aicoolies tool for the token owner.' The action and scope are unambiguous, and no sibling in the list offers the same functionality, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('Requires vote:write') and an exclusion ('Verified makers cannot vote on their own tool'), which tells the agent when the tool is not available. It does not name alternative tools, but none of the siblings are direct substitutes.

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