atstake_legion_get_proposal

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses that the call is non-mutating ('Read-only, no wallet needed') and explains that the returned outcome is a forecast computed over the current tally, not the on-chain result. It stops short of describing failure modes or data freshness beyond the block caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the forecast caveat, then the read-only note — every core sentence earns its place. The trailing 'Tip' pointing at earning_opportunities is unrelated to retrieving a proposal and mildly dilutes focus.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the fields returned and explaining how the predicted outcome is derived. That is enough to call it correctly; only edge cases such as an unknown proposal_id are left unaddressed.

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%, and the enum for `side` is already explained in the schema. The description mentions tally and phase but adds nothing about how `side` or `proposal_id` behave, so the baseline 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+resource ('One proposal in full') and enumerates exactly what comes back: claim, link, tally, phase, and predicted outcome. That distinguishes it immediately from the sibling atstake_legion_list_proposals, which lists proposals rather than resolving one.

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 situational context: use this before concluding to decide 'whether a conclude is worth the gas', and notes it is read-only with no wallet needed. It doesn't explicitly contrast against atstake_legion_list_proposals or atstake_legion_status, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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