Read live Governor state for a proposal

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds real value by revealing the read source (reads the Governor contract directly) and that no API key is needed, which is important auth/routing context. It doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits, but that's minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its returned fields, then the usage cue and auth note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned values (state, voted status, voting power, quorum, tally). Combined with the schema-documented inputs and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so governor, proposalId, and decimals are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (the Governor contract for a proposal) and enumerates exactly what is returned: state, Safe's voted status, voting power at snapshot, quorum, and running tally. This distinguishes it functionally from siblings like governor_get_proposal or governor_list_proposals, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance with 'Call this before voting,' which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives-based 5.

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