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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details: results are ordered largest voter first, voting power is denominated in AAVE, and the 'totals' field reflects all votes on the proposal rather than only the paginated page. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise and every sentence carries useful information. However, it opens with a caveat about the version argument rather than the core purpose, so it is not perfectly front-loaded, though this is a minor structural issue.

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 list-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, ordering, pagination caveat, and units. It does not spell out the exact response field names, but the combination of schema and description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the support parameter's filtering behavior, clarifying that proposalId comes from search_governance_proposals, and explicitly warning that no version argument is expected or needed.

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 verb/resource: get who voted on an Aave DAO proposal and with how much voting power. It distinguishes this tool from governance-structure tools by clarifying that DAO governance is not per-market and Governance V3 is unrelated to Aave v3/v4 markets.

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?

Provides clear usage context: no version argument is needed, and support=true/false can be passed to filter one side. It explains why the version parameter is absent, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over get_governance_proposal or get_user_vote.

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