Read this Safe's voting record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are newest-first and include the vote choice and reason. It does not discuss pagination or auth requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by the usage rationale.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and when to use it. However, with five optional filter parameters and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained about how to target a specific proposal, platform, outcome, or result limit.

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 only 20%, with just the 'venue' parameter documented, so the description needs to compensate. Instead it provides no guidance on limit, outcome, platform, or proposalId, leaving most filter semantics undocumented.

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 returns votes this Safe has already cast through Safe-MPC. It also specifies ordering ('newest first') and returned content ('choice and the reason'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like snapshot_x_vote or governor_vote.

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?

It gives clear usage context: read it before deciding so the Safe votes consistently with precedent, and to check whether a proposal has already been handled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops 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.