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

Annotations only declare the generic write/non-destructive/open-world profile; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the consequence of the call (a vote is triggered and 3 yes votes are needed to open the investigation). It still omits what happens on failure to reach quorum, whether the proposal expires, and visibility of the pending proposal.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the quorum rule as a compact second clause. No filler or redundancy.

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 non-read-only tool with no output schema and three mandatory parameters at low schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the downstream voting outcome but leaves auth expectations (token vs Authorization header) and per-parameter expectations largely unaddressed. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 25% (just the token parameter), so the description must compensate for the undocumented title, brief, and claims parameters. It says nothing about title/brief content expectations, and the 'up to 8 claims' detail duplicates the schema's maxItems=8 rather than clarifying what counts as a checkable claim.

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 specific verb and resource ('Propose a new investigation') and adds a concrete scope limit ('up to 8 checkable claims'), which separates it from siblings like investigations, proposals, and vote. It does not name those siblings, but the create-a-proposal framing is 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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'propose' — an agent can infer this is how you open a new investigation rather than view or vote on one. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus vote or proposals, and no prerequisites beyond the token parameter documented in the schema.

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