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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned, including the conditional nature of the voter receipt ('if voter passed'), which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a getter this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs specific details without redundancy. It uses a colon to enumerate return components efficiently, earning its place with zero waste.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It outlines all key return elements and the conditional receipt. It does not cover potential error scenarios, but those are not expected for a basic read 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%, with both parameters (proposalId and voter) clearly described in the schema. The description adds slight extra meaning by clarifying the voter parameter's purpose as fetching the receipt if the voter passed, but it does not significantly enhance beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full state for one proposal, listing specific components: actions, vote tally, NFT veto council status, and voter receipt if available. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_governance_proposals and build_propose_tx.

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 use when a single proposal's detailed state is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over list_governance_proposals or other alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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