Every open proposal this Safe can vote on

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing sort order (soonest deadline first), the per-proposal inclusion of the Safe's voting power, and the implicit 'all spaces with voting power' default. It does not explain truncation/pagination behavior, which is a gap given a per-space limit exists.

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 with the scope and ordering front-loaded, followed by the routing hint. No filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 readOnly/openWorld annotations but no output schema, the description does the right work by describing what is returned (open proposals with the Safe's voting power, deadline-ordered). The remaining omission is pagination/cap semantics for limitPerSpace, which matters for a zero-required-param list tool.

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 only 50%: `spaces` is documented in the schema but `limitPerSpace` (default 20, max 50) has no description anywhere. The description's 'across every Snapshot space the Safe holds voting power in' hints at the default filtering behavior of `spaces`, but it never mentions restricting spaces or the per-space cap, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Lists), resource (open proposals for voting), and precise scope (every Snapshot space the Safe holds voting power in), plus ordering (soonest deadline first) and payload (the Safe's voting power). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like snapshot_list_proposals and snapshot_query.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'the whole of the Safe's Snapshot ballot' and prescribes the next step: use it to decide what needs a vote, then snapshot_get_proposal to read one. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g., versus snapshot_list_proposals or snapshot_query), which keeps it short of a 5.

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