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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it builds calldata, may include an extra startVetoVote() step if no veto window is opened, and voter parameter triggers membership/duplicate-vote checks. It does not mention whether it sends the transaction or just returns calldata, but 'build calldata' strongly implies it is a builder, and the extra behavior is well explained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each adds necessary context: the support mapping, the conditional extra step, and the optional voter role. No wasted words; structure is clear and scannable.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main logic, including edge-case behavior (veto window not opened) and optional validation. It doesn't specify the return format in detail, but 'response includes an extra step' gives a hint, and the build_ naming convention implies transaction construction. Overall adequate for agent reasoning.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond schema: it explains the conditional interaction between proposal state and the response (startVetoVote step), and expands voter semantics to include duplicate-vote checks, not just council-membership. This helps an agent pass the right parameters and interpret results.

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 the specific verb 'Build' with the resource 'castVetoVote calldata on NFTVetoCouncil', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like build_vote_tx or build_execute_tx. It also clarifies the support parameter meaning (yes = veto, no = defend), further pinning down the purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (for veto/defend actions on NFTVetoCouncil) and provides concrete context like the conditional startVetoVote() step and optional voter check. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', but the scope is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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