Snapshot spaces this Safe can vote in

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not obligated to restate safety, yet it usefully discloses the three discovery sources (configured spaces, followed spaces, prior votes), which explains why the tool is open-world and potentially slow. Return shape and cost/latency are left unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the call-to-action condition; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly, though it never sketches what the result set looks like (space ids, names, voting power values).

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only hints at the 'spaces' parameter via 'on top of the ones discovered automatically' and never mentions includeZero.

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 ('Finds') and a precisely scoped resource ('every Snapshot space where the Safe holds voting power'), and the phrase 'without needing a list up front' separates it from sibling tools like snapshot_voting_power that require a known space id.

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?

'Start here when you do not know where this Safe votes' gives an explicit entry-point condition, but there is no complementary when-not guidance (e.g. use snapshot_voting_power when the space is already known) beyond the implied contrast.

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