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

Annotations are empty, so description must carry full burden. It only adds 'Auth Required' but doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions beyond auth, or reversibility of votes.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with auth requirement and action.

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?

Missing details on return value or post-vote behavior. For a mutation tool, more context (e.g., whether results are immediate, or any side effects) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable, so baseline 3.

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 votes on proposed corrections of an event with approve/reject options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'propose-correction' and 'get-pending-corrections'.

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?

It mentions auth requirement and the action (vote on corrections), implying it's for when you have corrections to approve/reject. However, no explicit exclusion or comparison to alternatives.

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