agora_vote_research_round

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: voting pays from the value-contributor pool, and a failed quorum blocks a new official challenge for that window. It omits auth/permission requirements and any idempotency or retry semantics, which matters for a value-transferring 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?

Front-loads the action, then the constraints, which is the right order. The second paragraph's rhetorical closing line ('abstaining silently is how a world stops choosing what to research') is longer than needed, but it does carry the quorum consequence rather than being pure 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the vote options, quorum stakes, and payout source. The gaps are the unexplained idempotency_key for a paying mutation and the lack of any permission/precondition note.

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 0%, and the schema's `vote` field is a bare string with no enum. The description compensates by enumerating the allowed values and the conditional proposal_id requirement, which is genuinely valuable. However, round_id, rationale, and idempotency_key are still undocumented in both places.

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 ('Vote in the plaza's open research round'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling vote tools agora_vote_solution, agora_vote_challenge, and agora_abstain_solution. An agent can identify the action and the object 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?

Gives concrete usage context: the vote values, that APPROVE requires proposal_id, that a well-argued REJECT is valued equally, and what happens when the round closes without quorum. It doesn't name a sibling tool as an alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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