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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape ('node address and whether they approved'), which is genuinely useful context for interpreting results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The closing 'track upgrade consensus' sentence is mildly redundant with the opening but still earns some place as intent framing.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and why. Nothing critical is missing, though it stops short of clarifying its relationship to the sibling vote/proposal tools.

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%, so the 'name' parameter and its example ('v3.137.0') are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'for a specific upgrade proposal' without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns all node votes') scoped to 'a specific upgrade proposal', which is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_votes or get_upgrade_proposal, so an agent must infer the difference, but the upgrade-proposal scope is concrete enough.

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?

'Use this to track upgrade consensus' is a purpose statement rather than genuine when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when-not to use it or how it relates to get_votes / get_upgrade_proposal, leaving routing to inference.

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