get_cosmos_proposal_votes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool retrieves votes but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, return format (e.g., list structure), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a read operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., vote format, pagination), error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context despite the clear schema. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (blockchain, proposalId, network) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying 'proposalId' is needed, aligning with the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get all votes') and resource ('for a governance proposal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cosmos_proposal' or 'get_cosmos_proposals', which focus on proposal details rather than votes, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving votes on proposals, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid proposal ID), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_cosmos_proposal' for proposal metadata), or mention any constraints like pagination or rate limits.

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