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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description technically bears the behavioral burden, and it does convey the mutating chair-only action and its binary outcome plus a doc reference (GOV-001 6.1). However, it says nothing about reversibility, effect of each ruling, or what governs an appeal, leaving real gaps for a governance mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the outcome set, and a governing reference. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 described, and the core action is present. Still, for a governance mutation connected to siblings like govern.appeal and govern.point_of_order, key context (state requirements, consequences of each ruling) is missing.

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 the sustained/not_sustained values and the Chair requirement for api_key. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource: the Chair 'rules' on a 'point of order', and it names the two possible outcomes (sustained/not_sustained). This distinguishes it from govern.point_of_order (raising one) and govern.vote, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 actor is identified ('Chair'), which implies only a chair should call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., a point of order must be pending), and no mention of govern.appeal as the follow-up path. Usage must be inferred.

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