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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that voting and pledging 'move no money,' that a pledge is only a signed intent, that nothing is held until payment settles, and that the tool is 'free, keyless, read-only' and 'records nothing about the caller.' This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 purpose and each sentence adds meaningful information: scope, use cases, the pledge-vs-funding distinction, and safety/read-only transparency. It is somewhat longer than average but every sentence earns its place given the subtle semantics around pledges.

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?

Given the tool's simple single-parameter input, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, the meaning of pledge, and the fact that it is read-only and records nothing. No important context appears 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 coverage is 100% and the wallet parameter is already well described as 'The 0x… address that voted or pledged. The ADDRESS only, never a private key.' The description reinforces the wallet-centric scope but does not add additional parameter-level 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 uses specific, concrete language: 'One wallet's whole demand history' and 'every packet it voted for or against, and every packet it pledged to back.' This clearly identifies the resource (a wallet's voting/backing history), the action (viewing), and the scope, distinguishing it from voting/backing submission tools like submit_vote and submit_backing.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when someone asks what they voted for, whether their vote is still active, or what they have pledged.' It also clarifies that a pledge is not funded and points to prepare_funding as the separate path for actual payments, providing clear routing guidance.

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