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

Discloses beyond the read-only annotation: data comes from a periodically regenerated mirror of the public ledger and registry, is not asserted on Vealth's authority, and the response reports its generation time. This adds freshness and trust context that annotations don't convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, each with a distinct job: scope/output, usage modes, and source/authority/access. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 an optional single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers both invocation modes, data provenance, freshness, and keyless access. Nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 already documents proposalId at 100% coverage; the description reinforces it and adds that passing a proposalId returns 'full deposit/voting/tally detail,' which goes beyond the schema's 'overview of everything open' phrasing. This enriches the meaning of the parameter without redundancy.

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?

Clearly identifies the domain (Regen Network governance) and output (bonded stake, validator count, proposals with phase and tally). The resource and scope are unambiguous, and the tool is distinguishable from Regen siblings by its governance-specific focus. However, the description lacks an explicit action verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists,' so it stops just short of a perfect score.

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 explicit invocation guidance: omit proposalId for a governance overview, pass one for a specific proposal's detail. This tells the agent exactly how to request either mode. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the governance scope plus mode instructions give clear context.

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