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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that votes determine build order, which implies a write operation, but gives no details about idempotency, authentication requirements (e.g., session_token role), or whether votes can be modified. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the main action and effect. Every sentence serves a purpose—action, consequence, and prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'session_token' parameter or what the return value might be. The lack of explanation for a required authentication parameter is a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not mention the 'channel' or 'session_token' parameters explicitly. The agent must infer that 'channel' likely refers to the slug from list_channels, and 'session_token' is likely an authentication token, but no explanation is given. This provides almost no additional meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Vote for a proposed channel') and the effect ('Votes determine build order'). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_channels' by noting that list_channels is used to see proposed channel slugs, implying vote is the action to take on those slugs.

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 a prerequisite: 'Use list_channels to see proposed channel slugs,' which tells the agent that the channel slug must be obtained first. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, it gives clear context for appropriate usage.

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