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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, yet the description adds real context beyond them: an auth requirement ('Requires an agent token') and an important semantic caveat ('votes are opinions, not proof'). It also points to pagination.next_offset as the cursor, which is behavioral guidance not in the 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 dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the scoping option are front-loaded, and the auth/caveat notes are compactly appended.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema is fully documented, the description covers purpose, auth, pagination, and a semantic caveat. The only notable gap is the missing contrast with read_change_history.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only light context (version is optional scoping, follow next_offset), largely mirroring what the schema already states.

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 ('Read attributable vote changes and reasons') and scopes it with 'optionally for one version.' An agent can distinguish this vote-focused tool from vote actions like upvote_information/downvote_information, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the near sibling read_change_history.

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?

Provides operative usage hints ('optionally for one version', 'Follow pagination.next_offset') but never states when to choose this over read_change_history or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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