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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It crediting a actually authenticates ChainHelix API key or pricing via token payments, outlines Snapshot governance data, and exposes ordering, default window, and max window. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it leaves some invocation details implicit.

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 dense and contains no pure filler, but the payment details overwhelm the main purpose sentence and the entire text is a single heavily packed paragraph. The information is organized by topic, but more structured formatting would make parameter constraints and defaults more discoverable.

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?

The description covers output ordering, window range, Snapshot ID format, authentication, and cost, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it does not clarify whether `space` is required, what happens when `space` is omitted, or what `limit` controls; those gaps prevent the context from being complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It adequately documents `space` with an example and `window` with default and max values, but it never explains `limit`, its default behavior, or whether it caps the number of proposals and votes. One of three parameters remains semantically underspecified.

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 tool as returning DAO governance data from Snapshot: proposals, votes, and scores per space, ordered by activity. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from the many other data tools in the sibling list, though it relies on the tool name and phrasing rather than an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list'.

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 says what the tool queries and gives parameter details, but it never states when to use this tool or when not to use an alternative. No exclusions, use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, so an agent has to infer the appropriate invocation context.

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