Safe voting power on a Snapshot proposal

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context by explaining that results are broken down by strategies and that zero means the vote carries no weight, but it does not discuss data freshness, required auth, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a decision-relevant caveat. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 simple read-only query, the description gives enough to understand the high-level output: voting power broken down by strategies. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, it leaves out return-value shape, parameter formats, and any error or edge-case behavior.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It barely does: it implies that 'space' refers to the space whose strategies are used and that 'proposalId' identifies the proposal, but it gives no format, naming, or lookup guidance for either parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reports the Safe's voting power on a specific Snapshot proposal, broken down by strategies. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like snapshot_vote (casting a vote) and snapshot_spaces_with_voting_power (listing spaces).

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?

Usage is implied by the zero-power note, which helps an agent decide whether a vote would matter, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool rather than snapshot_vote or snapshot_get_proposal. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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