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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the data actually contains (real institutional vote decisions, FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN) and the covered managers, but says nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or pagination beyond the schema's limit field.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence partially repeats what the first already conveys (that these are voting records), but it adds the resolution/vote-value framing at low cost.

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?

With an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return format. It supplies the domain context (which managers, what a vote means) sufficient for correct invocation, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 100%, so all five parameters (vote, year, limit, ticker, fund_manager) are already documented at the schema level, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the implied notion of a single company per call and the vote-value vocabulary, which the schema already carries.

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+resource (voting records from named NZ fund managers for a specific company) and even enumerates the vote values returned. It is clear and concrete, but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_vote_history, get_agm_resolutions, or get_proxy_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: 'for a specific company' plus the required ticker signals the intended scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives like get_vote_history or get_proxy_report. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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