dao_get_proposal

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns specific fields but does not disclose if it is read-only, requires authentication, or other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, side effects). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and when-to-use, second lists returned fields and required parameter. No extraneous text, efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers usage, returned data, and sibling tools. Lacks error handling or authentication details, but overall sufficient given low complexity.

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?

Only one parameter 'proposal_id' with 100% schema coverage. The schema description is sufficient, and the tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating the requirement. Baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a specific DAO governance proposal, including tally results. It lists returned fields and distinguishes from sibling tools (dao_list_proposals, dao_vote, dao_exec) by implying this is for detailed view. Verb+resource is specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need full details' and mentions required parameter 'proposal_id'. References related tools for alternative actions. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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