get_governance_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about pagination, default limit behavior, result ordering, or what the history contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a schema that leaves limit undocumented, the description is too thin for the agent to invoke or interpret results confidently. It never states what a governance history record contains or how many results to expect.

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 67%: symbol and status are documented in the schema, while limit is only a bare number with a default. The description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond restating that a token is involved, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter or clarify status filtering.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (governance proposal and voting history) scoped to a token. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from all siblings, none of which cover governance data. It loses a point only because it doesn't articulate scope details such as timeframe or proposal set.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether this complements query_fan_token_analytics or how to choose between the related analytics siblings.

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