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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that it is a free-tier scanner that hits Snapshot DAOs and that it extracts execution payloads to detect takeover attempts, and the existence of the curated offline mode implies outbound network calls by default. It does not state read-only semantics, rate limits, or what is returned when no proposals are found.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what it is and followed by what it extracts, with zero filler. Every clause (spaces covered, target addresses, calldata payloads, purpose of detection) earns its place.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains purpose and extraction targets but leaves the caller guessing about the response shape (e.g., per-proposal structure, empty results) and the 'Stage 1' pipeline relationship to deep_semantic_audit. Adequate minimum, but short of 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 100%, so limit, space_id, and use_curated_offline are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the space_id domain by naming Arbitrum, Aave, and ENS, which is marginal added meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('scanner for recent Snapshot DAO governance proposals') and even names the covered spaces (Arbitrum, Aave, ENS) plus the analysis output (target addresses, calldata payloads). It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it never references any sibling tool, so differentiation from deep_semantic_audit ('Stage 2' presumably) is left implicit.

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 'Stage 1 Free scanner' label hints that this is the cheap triage step before a deeper audit, but the description never states when an agent should call this versus deep_semantic_audit or scan_contract_selectors. Usage selection is only implied by the 'Stage 1 / Free' framing, not stated.

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