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

With no annotations beyond a title, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the consequence: the Chair rules and the ruling is appealable. It omits other relevant traits such as who is permitted to raise the point or what happens on failure, though the api_key schema field notes the attendee requirement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the citation, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all params are fully documented. The description covers purpose and the ruling/appeal outcome, leaving only minor gaps around eligibility and error behavior for a 5-parameter mutation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including text, flame_law, motion_id and meeting_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Raise a point of order on a motion') with a rule citation (GOV-001 6.1), so the parliamentary action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like govern.appeal or govern.second, so it stops short of 5.

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 implies the flow by noting 'The Chair rules on it; the ruling can be appealed,' which softly points to govern.appeal as the follow-up. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives statement or precondition guidance, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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