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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the optional explanation fields are stored verbatim and immutable, that omitting them still leaves the second valid, and that each act counts as one toward the 3-seconder threshold. It does not cover withdrawal, idempotency, or failure modes, but the core side effects are well described.

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 dense but efficient, packing the core purpose, semantic distinction, counting rule, and optional-field behavior into one sentence. The long em-dash clauses slightly reduce scannability, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple action without an output schema, the description explains the action's meaning, the optional inputs, and the counting rule. It leaves gaps around the expected slug value, whether the same user can second multiple times, and what a successful response looks like, but the essential call contract is conveyed.

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?

The schema already documents two of three parameters; the description adds meaning by clarifying that worth_measuring_because and weakest_part are optional, stored verbatim/immutable, and can be omitted without invalidating the second. However, the required 'slug' parameter is not clarified—an agent must infer it refers to the proposal identifier from context.

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 ('second') and resource ('a proposal') and immediately clarifies the intended meaning by distinguishing 'worth measuring' from 'worth adopting'. This semantic contrast differentiates it from adoption/voting tools, so an agent can understand exactly what action this tool performs.

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 provides concrete usage context: advancing a proposal needs 3 distinct seconders and each act weighs 1. The 'not worth adopting' phrase gives an exclusion that steers away from adoption, though it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool such as 'vote'.

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