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 needs no restating. The description does add two real pieces of behavioral context: the 'Corporate tier required' entitlement gate and the shape of the analytical output (dissent rates, management alignment, vote change tracking). That is useful but thin for a read tool whose behavior is otherwise fully covered by annotations.

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, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the usage triggers and the tier requirement. Slightly dense with three enumerated capability lists, but every clause carries information.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the missing operational piece — the corporate-tier entitlement requirement. Only the lack of pagination/history-depth guidance and explicit sibling routing leaves a small 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 100%, so all three optional filters (year, ticker, dissent_only) are already documented in the schema. The description implies the dissent-filtering concept but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource (historical voting analytics) and pins down the scope: how different fund managers voted on the same NZX resolutions, with cross-fund comparison. It is clearly distinguishable from general governance siblings conceptually, though it never names the closest sibling (get_fund_votes) to draw an explicit boundary.

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 gives explicit usage triggers — historical voting patterns, fund voting comparison, dissent analysis, how funds voted on a company — which maps cleanly onto realistic user intents. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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