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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the state transition (question proceeds to the assembly), which is real value, but says nothing about whether the action is idempotent, what happens on a duplicate second, or side effects; the attendee-not-appellant constraint lives only in the schema.

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 with no filler; the rule citation (GOV-001 6.2) is compact and informative rather than padding.

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?

With a full output schema and fully documented parameters, the description needn't explain return values, and it adequately conveys the action and its effect. The main omission is guidance on when to second versus vote or file an appeal.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the notable api_key constraint (must be an attendee other than the appellant). The description adds no parameter-level 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 ('Second') plus the resource ('an appeal') and the resulting effect ('the question goes before the assembly'). This distinguishes it from the appeal-filing and appeal-voting siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 procedural consequence implies when this is needed (an appeal requires a second before the assembly takes it up), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like govern.appeal or govern.appeal_vote.

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