get_participation_report

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: anonymous polls excluded, zero-activity users dropped unless include_inactive, and the non-obvious counting rule that a vote counts in the month its counted stance row was created. These are real disclosure wins for a reporting tool.

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 dense sentences pack the ranking behavior, scoping options, and counting caveat up front with essentially no filler. The semicolon-chained clauses are information-dense rather than wasteful, though slightly cramped.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-shape burden: it tells the agent it gets one row per user with a `total` value sorted descending, which is the key information. Full column set is not enumerated, but for a 7-param report this is close to sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including ranges and defaults. The description largely restates them ('default 50, max 500', group_ids 1-50) and only marginally adds the 'counted together' relationship, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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+resource ('rank the members of a group set') and clarifies it returns Loomio's own report, one row per user sorted by `total` desc. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_user_activity to differentiate the two activity-style 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?

Explains how to scope the report ('group_ids' counted together or 'group_scope: my'), which implies usage, but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_user_activity or get_group. Inclusion rules (include_inactive, zero-activity dropped) give some operational guidance but no true when-to-use framing.

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