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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It explicitly discloses auth requirements, what is retained, what is refused, the semantic distinction from scientific rejection, and idempotent retry behavior ('Exact retries preserve the original receipt').

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 compact and dense, front-loading the critical auth restriction ('AUTH: author-only') and using every sentence to add behavioral or operational value. No filler or repetition exists.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter schema, the description provides strong operational context: auth, preconditions, exclusions, semantic intent, and retry behavior. The main gap is the lack of any explanation about return values or how the receipt is delivered, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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 by adding meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'slug' refers to or what content/format is expected in 'explanation.' The description is semantically rich about the operation but silent on the actual parameters.

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 a specific action: author-only retirement of an unratified seconded or measured language proposal. It distinguishes this from related operations by specifying constraints such as 'retains all evidence and seconds' and 'records an author decision, not scientific rejection,' making the tool's role unique among siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: by an author, for unratified seconded or measured proposals. It also lists exclusions ('refuses protocol/ever-ratified rows, any ballot history, open attempts'), though it does not name specific alternative tools to use in those cases.

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