build_vote_council_race_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions a prerequisite (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and the action 'build transaction,' but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., an unsigned transaction object), whether it signs or submits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a transaction builder, leaving the agent uncertain about expected behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a bracketed requirement. Every word serves a purpose, and the critical pre-condition is front-loaded. No unnecessary elaboration or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain the return format, possible errors, or the broader dispute/race context. For a transaction builder with many siblings, this is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably without additional inference.

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% (each parameter has a description), so the schema carries the full burden of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level context or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Build transaction for council to vote on race dispute.' It uses a specific verb ('build'), resource ('transaction'), and context ('council vote on race dispute'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like build_vote_council_transaction by explicitly mentioning 'race dispute.' The requirement note adds clarity without muddying the purpose.

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 implies the tool is for building council votes on race disputes, and the requirement 'REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1' indicates a prerequisite environment condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., build_vote_council_transaction for non-race disputes) or state when not to use it. Thus, usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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