Find on-chain Governor proposals (no API key)

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the data source (on-chain logs, no third-party indexer), that results are filtered against live contract state, and that full proposal descriptions are returned. It's missing any note on cost, rate limits, or scan size, which matters for an unbounded log scan.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism, then the no-indexer guarantee, then applicability. Mostly earns its space, though the Tally-shutdown justification is closer to marketing rationale than invocation information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return shape (full proposal description) and the compatibility surface (OpenZeppelin Governor, Compound Bravo). For a three-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient; result size or pagination behavior is the remaining gap.

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%, so governor, states, and lookback are already documented, including the default state set and the lookback derivation rationale. The description's mention of 'filtering by the contract's live state' loosely ties to the states parameter but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('discovers proposals by reading ProposalCreated logs straight from a Governor contract') and explains the filtering mechanism. It doesn't differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling governor_list_proposals, which an agent would also consider.

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 'supported way ... Tally shut down in March 2026' line implies when to prefer this tool, and the compatibility note scopes its applicability. But it never explicitly contrasts with governor_list_proposals or governor_get_proposal, so the agent must infer which sibling to pick.

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