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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable provenance ('derived from the full ledger vote history') and ecosystem scope ('Canton ecosystem only'), though it omits any notes on freshness or rate limits.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and return metrics, then adds example queries and scope notes. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains what data is returned, the data source, the ecosystem scope, and gives usage examples. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key returned metrics.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single optional sv_name parameter is fully described in the schema, including examples and the omit-for-all behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: getting on-chain voting records of Canton Super Validators, with concrete metrics (votes cast, for/against, abstentions, participation span). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like list_governance_votes or get_cip_votes.

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?

Provides useful example use cases ('how does Tradeweb vote', 'which SVs abstain most', 'who is most active in governance') that clarify when to use it. It does not name when to use an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it falls 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.