mdl_custom_lists_get_votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of scope, aggregation, or visibility of the returned votes—so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is no front-loaded statement of action or result, just a label-like fragment.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what 'votes' means and what the caller gets back. It supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to reason about the return value or the exact input semantics.

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 there is a single required parameter (list_id) that the description never explains. It does not clarify the accepted identifier forms (integer vs. the pattern-constrained string) or which list is targeted, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 text 'Custom Lists: get votes' essentially restates the tool name (mdl_custom_lists_get_votes) with no added specificity. It nominally contains a verb and resource, but gives no indication of what the votes represent (vote counts? voter identities? the current user's vote?) or how they relate to a custom list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the obvious siblings mdl_custom_lists_i_voted, mdl_custom_lists_friends_voted, mdl_custom_lists_set_votes, or mdl_custom_lists_get_detail. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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