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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the payment model: $0.002 in USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc, with failed calls uncharged. It also clarifies that votes are Snapshot tallies and that certain wallet-level data is not reported.

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 description is front-loaded with the core resource and returned fields, then adds only useful clarifications about vote tallies, exclusions, and pricing. Every sentence contributes information an agent would need to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies the source, scope, returned fields, exclusions, and payment behavior. Nothing material is missing for correct selection or invocation.

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 limit parameter already documents the 1-to-20 range and default. The description reinforces the 1-to-20 range but adds no format or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: Convex Finance (cvx.eth) governance on Snapshot, returning the newest proposals with named fields. An agent can distinguish this from general crypto price, pool, or validator tools in the sibling list.

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 description provides clear context that this tool reports Snapshot governance proposals and explicitly excludes vlCVX lock balances and per-wallet voting power. It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool, but the exclusions meaningfully guide when not to use it.

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