get_proxy_votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output structure (per meeting: issuer/CUSIP, matter, shares voted, vote, recommendation) and scope ('for a filing'), but does not mention pagination behavior, data availability, or that it is read-only. This is moderate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key information, with no wasted words.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the input (a filing) and the output structure. It does not explain pagination defaults, but those are defined in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'per meeting' context but does not elaborate on accession format, cursor usage, or limit semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's resource: structured N-PX fund proxy-voting records for a filing, with specific fields. Although it lacks an explicit imperative verb, the name 'get_proxy_votes' and the content description make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving N-PX proxy-voting records for a specific filing, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools such as search_fund_holdings or extract_filing_section. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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