proposal_votes

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

The description goes well beyond the schema by disclosing that the tool never casts or changes a vote, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits array responses to 100 rows and 256 KiB, reports truncation in text and metadata, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations (none provided) and schema do not convey.

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 dense but each sentence adds value: scope, pagination behavior, safety guarantee, response limits, and truncation handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly longer than necessary, but every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it reads, what it never does, pagination behavior, response limits, and truncation reporting. It doesn't describe the exact return shape, but for a read-only vote lookup with explicit proposal_id, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that proposal_id is the explicit required input, that limit/offset are pagination-related (implied by 'does not auto-fetch continuation pages'), and that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied. It doesn't detail the format of limit/offset, but the core parameter semantics are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read recorded votes for an explicit proposal_id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like proposal_list or proposal_pending_count, and the explicit proposal_id requirement makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 states that the tool requires an explicit proposal_id and notes that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied without implying effectiveness. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when to use them, but the context of reading votes for a specific proposal is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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