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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency ('resolving twice returns the recorded outcome') and edge-case behavior (Condorcet cycles and supermajority failures returning co_winners with status unresolved). This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core action and trigger, the second covers idempotency, and the third handles edge cases. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, idempotency, and peculiar edge cases. It does not specify the success return format in detail, but the edge-case return behavior is already explained, making it largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the proposal_id parameter, but it does not mention it at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic guidance about what value to pass or how it connects to quorum/deadline context.

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 and resource: 'Compute and attest the outcome' for a proposal. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like vote or propose by focusing on finalization after quorum/deadline, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides a clear trigger condition: 'once quorum is met (or the deadline has passed)'. This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear contextual guidance without formal exclusions.

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