Vote for SR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions automatic selection of the best SR, permission requirements, and auto-claim of rewards. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting previous votes), error handling, or the result of the action. More detail would be beneficial.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes unique information (action, prerequisites, reward behavior). No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and one behavioral aspect. However, it lacks information about the return value, what happens if voting fails, or the impact on existing votes. Completeness is moderate.

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% for the single parameter (poolAddress), which already explains its purpose and default behavior. The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Vote'), the resource ('Super Representative (SR)'), and the selection criterion ('highest APY'). It also mentions the goal of earning voting rewards. The tool is distinct from sibling tools, none of which involve voting.

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 provides prerequisites (VoteWitness permission, API key) and mentions auto-claim behavior. It implies when to use (to earn rewards) but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or scenarios. However, no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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