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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose ordering, that status output calls out lapsed deadlines, that vote standing is reported against quorum and approval thresholds, and that a gov.near.org thread is included. It does not state read-only nature explicitly, auth requirements, or whether status/query filters combine with AND or OR, leaving some behavioral inference to the agent.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the alternative tool named last where an agent would look for it. The middle return-field enumeration is dense but justified because there is no output schema; a slight trim of the field list would make it tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends words on what comes back, and all three optional parameters are covered by the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about how multiple filters compose and what an empty result means, which matters for a filtered 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%, so all three parameters are already documented and the description only restates that filtering is possible by status or by text in title/description. It adds no syntax hints, no note on interaction between query and status (intersection vs union), and no guidance on using the 50-item ceiling, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("List NEAR House of Stake governance proposals"), names the source contract (vote.dao), states ordering (newest first), and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_proposal, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

It gives concrete triggering questions ("what is NEAR governance voting on", "did HSP-027 pass") and an explicit alternative for the other mode of use ("For one proposal in full use get_proposal"). The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both stated outright.

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