proposal_votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it guarantees 'never casts or changes a vote,' states a single logical GET, disclaims auto-fetching of pages, and details local limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also preserves type expectations for vote weights and approval.

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 first sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but later content includes confusing test-like detail ('Two pages of two voters matched the first four-row page exactly') and opaque policy phrasing. Several clauses could be trimmed or clarified without losing value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, pagination behavior, response-size limits, truncation, and value types, which is unusually complete. It omits a detailed response shape and clear limit/offset semantics, but an agent can call the tool with reasonable confidence.

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 0%, yet only proposal_id is described as required; limit and offset are never defined beyond the vague 'other declared filters are forwarded as supplied.' No constraints or semantics are provided for the string-typed limit/offset, leaving the agent to guess how pagination actually works.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recorded votes for an explicit proposal_id'), making the tool's operation immediately clear. It also differentiates this tool from proposal listing/counting siblings by focusing on votes and the required proposal_id.

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 never names a sibling alternative or explicitly states when to use proposal_votes over proposal_list or proposal_pending_count. The read-only guarantee and single-GET statement imply safe lookup usage, and the filter-forwarding note gives parameter-level caution, but broader usage context is largely left to inference.

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