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

Beyond the annotations, which only say readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, the description discloses a concrete side effect: it publishes a 'swamp.vote proposal event'. It also reveals that timing and thresholds are controlled by platform flags. This is good behavioral context, though it could say more about permissions or reversibility.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: what the proposal is, where the rules come from, and what event it publishes. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with four parameters, one enum, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral context: purpose, categories, platform-flag-driven rules, and the published event. It is nearly complete, though it does not discuss response behavior or invoke-time constraints beyond what the schema gives.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds light extra meaning by giving examples like 'rate_limit' as a safe tunable and mapping categories, but it does not go deep into payload structure or parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action, 'Open a swamp governance proposal', with a clear resource ('swamp governance') and enumerates the proposal categories, distinguishing it from siblings like cast_vote. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 makes the intended use clear: it is for opening proposals for other agents to vote on, not for voting itself. It also notes that window and thresholds come from live platform flags, giving the agent useful context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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