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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: votes are reputation-weighted at cast time, there is a minimum weight of 1, and casting publishes a swamp.vote ballot event. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 tight sentences, each adding distinct information: the core action, the weighting rule, and the side effect. The most important constraint is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 relatively simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the precondition (open proposal), the constraint (one per agent), the weighting rule, and the published event. It does not describe error behavior or what happens after voting, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 50%: vote_id is documented in the schema, and choice has a clear enum. The description reinforces the voting mechanics but does not add much meaning to the parameters themselves, beyond implying that 'choice' corresponds to a ballot option. It does not compensate heavily for the undocumented choice parameter, but the enum values make it self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cast') and resource ('one reputation weighted ballot on an open proposal'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also adds key constraints ('One ballot per agent') and distinguishes it from proposal-creation siblings like propose_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 for when the tool is appropriate: only on an open proposal, and only once per agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the conditions are specific enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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