get_governance_votes

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

No annotations provided; description only lists output content. Does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a data retrieval tool, more transparency is needed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the output, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It explains what is returned but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or how filters affect results. Adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, and no parameter details are missing. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Lido DAO governance votes', and mentions 'Aragon voting' for context. It enumerates what is shown: proposal metadata, execution status, and individual votes, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_vote_details.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vote_details or other governance-related tools. Lacks explicit context or use-case direction.

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