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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance and scope that annotations cannot convey: data comes 'from the ledger itself', the corpus join is 'CCPEDIA-unique', and the tool is Canton-only (reinforcing openWorldHint=false). It stops short of describing paging/return-shape behavior, but the offset parameter schema already carries that.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does, then coverage, then routing to alternatives – a sensible ordering with little filler. The 'CCPEDIA-unique' claim is slightly promotional, but it does convey data provenance. The multi-item coverage list is dense but each item is a distinct vote category an agent might query on.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys the return content (vote requests and outcomes) and scope well enough to invoke confidently. With five optional params, zero required, and full schema coverage, the remaining gap is only return-format detail, which is minor for a read-only list tool.

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% – every one of the five filters (limit, offset, action, status, outcome) is documented in the schema, including enum values and the 'no all value' caveat. The description adds no filter syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema supplies, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: it lists Canton Network on-chain DSO governance vote requests and their outcomes, and enumerates the decision classes covered (Featured App rights, SV reward weight, SV offboarding, AmuletRules/DsoRules config). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_cip_vote_outcome and list_votes_by_sv, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete intake phrases ('what has the DSO decided recently', 'which apps got Featured App status', 'what got rejected') plus explicit alternatives for narrower questions: one CIP's fate goes to get_cip_vote_outcome, one validator's record to list_votes_by_sv. It also states the boundary condition 'Canton ecosystem only', so when-not-to-use is implied for cross-ecosystem questions.

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