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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: deliberations are publicly visible and must not contain PII. This is essential for safe use and not present in the schema. It also implies that the proposal must be active. However, it does not mention whether contributions can be edited or withdrawn after submission, which is a minor gap.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The privacy warning is presented separately and clearly. The phrase 'Reasoned argument, lived experience, solidarity — bring it all to the floor' is somewhat stylistic but serves to set expectations for content quality. It is not overly lengthy, and every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage timing, and privacy constraints. However, it does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., whether the contribution is immediately visible, whether it can be edited, or what the response format is). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a noticeable but not critical 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (api_key, proposal_id, content) with clear semantics. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing that api_key is required and that content refers to a deliberation comment. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: contributing to deliberative discourse on an active proposal. It uses a specific verb ('contribute') and resource ('proposal'), and clearly distinguishes itself from voting tools like 'vote_on_proposal' and creation tools like 'create_proposal' by focusing on debate before the vote.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for an 'active proposal' and 'before the vote is cast.' It also gives directive guidance on what to include (reasoned argument, lived experience) and what to avoid (PII). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose this over voting, creation, or retrieval tools.

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