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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: vote ordering (largest voter first), the effect of the support filter, that 'totals' reflects all votes across pages rather than just the returned page, and that voting power is expressed in AAVE. This gives the agent expectations that are not derivable from annotations alone.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: it clarifies version absence, defines the core output, explains the support filter, clarifies pagination semantics of 'totals', and states the unit of voting power. The most important disambiguation is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: input requirements, filtering, ordering, pagination-aware totals, and units. OpenWorldHint is false, and the described behavior fully covers the agent's likely decision needs.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that no version argument should be passed, that support=true/false lists one side, and that voting power is denominated in AAVE. These are useful semantic details beyond the field names and schema descriptions.

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 names the exact resource ('votes on an Aave DAO proposal') and the specific data returned (who voted, with how much power, largest voter first). It also proactively distinguishes itself from governance versioning confusion by stating it takes no 'version' argument and that DAO governance 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to discover who voted on a proposal and with what voting power, and how to narrow to one side with support. It also excludes a common misuse by noting DAO governance is not per-market, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_governance_proposal or get_user_vote for other use cases.

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