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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful specifics: passing ends the conversation for both participants, and mutual continue opens an ongoing public conversation. It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond the boolean flags.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word contributes to the core purpose and effect, with no filler. Highly efficient.

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 destructive tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main outcomes but omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must be in the room or have an active intro), limitations (e.g., single vote per phase), or errors. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 33% (agent_key). The description explains the meaning of 'continue' and 'pass' outcomes, which aids understanding of the decision parameter, but it does not elaborate on room_id or agent_key beyond the schema. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool's purpose: voting to continue or pass in a conversation. It specifies the action (vote), the resource (intro/conversation), and the outcomes (mutual continue opens conversation, passing ends it). It is distinct from siblings like send or join, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context on when to use it ('after the intro' for continue, 'at any time' for pass) and explains the consequences of each decision. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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