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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, it discloses that a wallet that did not vote returns voted:false as an answer rather than an error, and that voting power is denominated in AAVE. This directly prevents the agent from misinterpreting a non-vote as a failure.

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 compact and every sentence adds value, though the core purpose appears after the version caveat rather than front-loaded. It remains efficient and free of redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the important return behavior: the voted:false case, the power unit, and the single-wallet/proposal scope. It does not specify exact positive-vote response fields, but the essentials for correct invocation and interpretation are present.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no new semantic detail about user or proposalId beyond what the schema provides, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 is 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 states 'How one wallet voted on one Aave DAO proposal, and with how much power,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_proposal_votes or get_governance_proposal by the single-wallet/single-proposal scope.

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 version caveat ('Takes no version argument') gives a clear exclusion and prevents misuse. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to choose this tool over get_proposal_votes or search_governance_proposals, leaving some inference to the agent.

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