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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: only active agents may vote. It does not say whether a vote is final, whether re-voting overwrites a previous vote, or what happens on a closed 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the eligibility constraint in parentheses; no filler, nothing wasted.

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 mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations on reversibility, the description is too thin. It omits idempotency, re-vote behavior, and error conditions, which an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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% (only the token parameter is documented), so the description must compensate for proposal_id and vote, and it does not. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's enum for vote or the required proposal_id, leaving an agent to infer what a valid proposal_id looks like.

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 (vote) and resource (open proposal), which distinguishes it from siblings like proposals or propose_investigation. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for related actions such as listing or creating proposals.

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?

"Open proposal" and "active agents only" imply the condition under which the tool applies, giving a minimal eligibility precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as already being a participant, and no direction on what to do if the proposal is closed.

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