get_vote_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation returning details, with no mention of destructive actions. Could be improved by explicitly stating it is read-only or noting any authorization requirements, but current transparency is good.

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 sentence that packs purpose and output specifics without any redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning 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 the simple schema (1 required param) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the data returned. It could mention the output format or provide an example, but overall sufficient.

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 100% with one parameter ('vote_id') described as 'The vote index number'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. 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' and the resource 'detailed voting records for a specific Lido DAO governance vote', and specifies what is shown (voter addresses, vote direction, stake weight). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_governance_votes' which likely lists votes, making the purpose 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 implies usage when needing details of a specific vote, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_governance_votes' or 'get_address_activity'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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