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

Although readOnlyHint=true is present, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Returns voted:false when that wallet did not vote, which is an answer rather than an error' clarifies the non-vote case, and 'Voting power is in AAVE' discloses units. 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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the version caveat, the core function, the non-vote behavior, and the unit. The opening caveat is slightly atypical but valuable. No redundant filler; it is appropriately compact for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the non-vote response, the voting power unit, and where proposalId comes from (schema). It could explicitly mention that the response includes the vote choice, but 'How one wallet voted' sufficiently implies this.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'user' and 'proposalId'. The description adds the caveat about no 'version' argument, which is useful, but it does not elaborate further on the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 exactly what the tool does: retrieves how one wallet voted on one Aave DAO proposal and with how much voting power. It distinguishes this from per-market governance by explicitly noting it takes no 'version' argument, avoiding confusion with market-related tools. The verb 'get' is implied by the title but the behavior is clearly and specifically described.

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 provides clear context: it warns not to pass a 'version' argument because DAO governance is not per-market, which prevents a common misuse. It also indirectly distinguishes from broader tools like get_proposal_votes by stating it covers one wallet's vote. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, leaving a small gap.

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