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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful substance beyond that — the rule count, the eight enumerated categories, and the FOR/AGAINST/REFER recommendation scale with per-resolution reasoning. It doesn't state latency, data freshness, or behavior when no AGM is found for the ticker, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose first, coverage detail second, return format third, usage last. The parenthetical category list is long but informative rather than filler; no sentence could be cut without losing content.

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 safety, the description need only frame purpose and inputs, which it does. For a two-parameter read tool in a very crowded governance namespace, the missing piece is explicit disambiguation from get_agm_resolutions, predict_agm_outcome, and check_governance_policy.

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 both parameters documented, including the 'latest meeting' default for year, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — it does not clarify how year interacts with the resolution set or whether an omitted year returns the most recent meeting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get automated proxy advisory voting recommendations for a company's AGM resolutions') and quantifies scope with '69 rules across 8 categories'. It implicitly separates itself from resolution-listing tools like get_agm_resolutions, but never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from the category list.

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?

Gives explicit triggering contexts: 'how to vote at an AGM', 'governance concerns for a company', or 'proxy advisory analysis'. It provides no when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as predict_agm_outcome, get_vote_history, or list_voting_policies, which occupy adjacent territory.

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