Get vote stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds only the 'real-time' qualifier, which hints at data freshness but reveals little else. It does not clarify what kind of statistics are returned or whether the data is computed on demand, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately concise for a one-parameter read-only getter. It slightly under-delivers on context, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 simple getter with one required parameter and a read-only annotation, the description gives enough to attempt a call, but 'voting statistics' is vague and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. It would be more complete if it described whether the stats are counts, percentages, per-juror breakdowns, or something else.

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 caseId parameter is already documented with a UUID pattern and descriptive text. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the stats are 'for a case,' leaving the baseline of 3 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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('voting statistics'), and the scope ('for a case'), making the tool's basic purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like tribeunal_get_case_activity or tribeunal_await_verdict, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'for a case' implies the tool should be used to retrieve live voting data about a specific case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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