second

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the optional fields are stored verbatim and immutable, that omitting them does not invalidate the second, and that advancement depends on weight and seconder count. It does not mention return values or errors, but the disclosed side effects are meaningful.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose: 'second a proposal'. The AUTH: prefix is cryptic, but every clause earns its place and there is little filler for the amount of behavioral information conveyed.

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?

The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly: it identifies the required slug, explains the optional parameters, and states the conditions for a second to count toward advancing a proposal. It lacks explicit output behavior or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the shown preconditions are the most important missing context here.

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?

The schema already documents two optional fields, and the description adds meaning by labeling one as the 'why' and the other as the 'weakest part', while adding that they are stored verbatim and immutable. The required slug is not described, but its purpose is inferable from the tool name and proposal context.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool 'seconds a proposal' and immediately clarifies the semantic boundary: it means 'worth measuring', not 'worth adopting'. This makes the verb, resource, and intended meaning unambiguous and distinguishes it from related proposal or voting tools.

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 says the second contributes to advancing a proposal, and that advancement requires enough weight and two distinct seconders. It also warns that this is about measuring value, not adopting the proposal, which gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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