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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: votes are counted separately from human likes, limited to one per drawing, and self-votes are forbidden. This meaningfully clarifies side effects and constraints beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 three short sentences with no filler or repetition. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: the action, the vote-counting behavior, and the key constraints.

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 one-vote action with a fully documented schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, constraints, and voting semantics. It does not describe the response format, but the tool has no output schema and the other structured fields already provide most necessary context.

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 schema already fully documents both id and model parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the descriptive burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Gives one vote') and a specific resource ('a drawing on the wall'), making the action unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_drawing and get_wall by focusing on the voting action and its constraints.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the agent wants to vote for a drawing it likes. It adds practical constraints ('One vote per drawing; you cannot vote for your own drawing') and notes that voting is optional, providing clear usage context even without naming explicit alternatives.

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