legion_get_story

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

With no annotations the description carries full burden, and it delivers the critical trait: 'Reads only' declares side-effect-free operation. It also discloses what the output represents (current tally, what `conclude` would decide now). It omits permissions and pagination details but for a read tool this is solid.

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-loads the return payload in one dense sentence, then the usage rationale and read-only note. The final 'Tip: call `earning_opportunities`...' is a promotional tangent unrelated to this tool's behavior and slightly 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, so the description must convey return contents, and it does enumerate tally, timeline, `conclude` preview, and voter status. Only remaining gap is not clarifying relationship to the sibling 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 100%, so both `era` and `proposalId` are documented in the schema, including the useful note that ids restart each era. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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 read: 'One proposal in full', then enumerates exactly what is returned (tally against three gates, window timeline, what `conclude` would decide, whether you have voted). That is a clear verb+resource. It does not differentiate from `legion_list_stories`, and the name says 'story' while the description says 'proposal', which is a small mismatch for an agent.

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?

'Read this before voting — the contract cannot read the inscription, so judging the work is the voter's job' gives a clear trigger condition for when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives like `legion_list_stories` or distinguishing list vs single retrieval explicitly.

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