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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that duplicates and post-deadline votes are rejected, and details how the ballot shape varies by algorithm. It does not cover authentication, return values, or error behavior, but the provided details are substantive and helpful.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The algorithm-specific formats are listed efficiently without redundancy. Every sentence adds necessary detail; there is no fluff or 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 complex tool with multiple algorithm-dependent ballot shapes, the description covers the critical variations and rejection rules. It lacks explicit return-value information and does not explain how the algorithm is determined (likely from the proposal), but given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it provides substantial context. A 4 is appropriate.

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 50%; only 'value' and 'reasoning' have schema descriptions. The description significantly enriches the 'value' parameter by enumerating allowed formats per algorithm, which is valuable. However, 'proposal_id' and 'voter' are not explained beyond the phrase 'expected voter identity', leaving their semantics incomplete.

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 clearly states the verb 'Submit a vote' and specifies the resource (a vote for a proposal). It also distinguishes itself by describing algorithm-specific ballot formats, which sets it apart from siblings like propose or resolve. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context: the voter must be 'expected' (registered) and votes are rejected if duplicate or post-deadline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like registration. It gives some context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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