list_voting_policies

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It specifies the scope ('for the authenticated user') and the tier requirement, which are behavioral constraints. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but lacks details like rate limits or data freshness.

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 efficiently written sentences with no fluff. First sentence states action and scope, second adds meaningful context about policy contents and tier requirement.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, scope, content of policies (threshold overrides), and access tier. No gaps are apparent.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), and the description does not attempt to document any, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines for 0-parameter tools.

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?

Clearly states 'List all custom voting policies' with a specific verb and resource. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_stewardship_reports' or 'get_proxy_report' by focusing on custom policies for the authenticated user.

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?

Indicates the required tier ('Enterprise or Institutional'), providing context for when the tool is accessible. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the tier requirement serves as a clear usage gate.

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