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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a meaningful gating constraint not present in structured data — 'Corporate tier required' — plus what categories of data are returned. It does not describe error behavior when the tier is missing or when an ID is invalid.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy: purpose and returned payload first, usage cue second, prerequisite last. Every sentence earns its place.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully summarizes the payload. The tier requirement plus a required-only single parameter make this nearly self-contained; only failure/entitlement behavior is unstated.

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% with a single well-documented 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The phrase 'by ID' adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get full detail for a specific stewardship report by ID') and enumerates the payload contents (per-company resolution analysis, vote recommendations, policy used). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_stewardship_reports and get_proxy_report.

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?

'Use when asked about a specific voting report's details' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming the alternative (list_stewardship_reports) or stating when not to use it, so it is contextual but not fully routing.

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