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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the richness of the payload — individual SV votes with their own written reasons and who abstained — which tells the agent this is a heavyweight single-record fetch, not a summary.

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 sentences, zero filler. The identity of the resource is front-loaded, the returned contents are packed into one enumerative clause, and the usage/scope caveat comes last where it belongs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — and it does so thoroughly, listing each field category an agent would need. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents that a unique prefix is acceptable and that the value comes from list_governance_votes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one Canton on-chain DSO governance vote request') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: proposed action, requester reason, per-SV votes with reasons, abstentions, outcome, effective date. That level of specificity separates it cleanly from siblings like list_governance_votes, get_cip_vote_outcome, and compare_governance_outcomes.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow ('Use after list_governance_votes when a specific decision matters') and constrains scope ('Canton ecosystem only'). It doesn't name an exclusion case or a competing alternative for aggregate comparison (e.g., compare_governance_outcomes), so it falls just short of a 5.

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