build_vote_council_transaction

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'build transaction,' without disclosing side effects, whether it signs or submits, the output format, or any on-chain implications. The BAOZI_LIVE requirement is a setup condition, not a behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with a key prerequisite prepended. No wasted words; it front-loads the critical requirement.

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?

The description gives the core action and a requirement, but for a transaction builder with no output schema, it lacks clarity on return values, error scenarios, and how it relates to the race or change-vote siblings. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (market public key, vote boolean, wallet). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Build transaction') and the specific context ('council member to vote on dispute'). It is sufficiently specific and distinguishes from the race-specific sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with the 'change council vote' variant.

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 mentions the BAOZI_LIVE=1 prerequisite, which is a form of usage guidance, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_vote_council_race_transaction or build_change_council_vote_transaction. The context of 'dispute' is implied but not elaborated.

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