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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that votes are 'permanently recorded in the SHA-256 audit chain', signaling irreversibility, but does not cover other traits like authentication requirements or effects on session state.

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 with the action front-loaded. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists to explain return values, the description sufficiently covers purpose, permanence, and session context. It doesn't elaborate on weighting mechanics or prerequisites, but the schema implies key requirements like api_key.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters (vote, api_key, motion_id, statement). The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'Cast a weighted vote' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from governance session and audit tools by focusing on the voting action itself.

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?

Provides clear context by specifying 'in an active MO§ES™ governance session', implying the need for an active session. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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