dao_list_proposals

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it returns a JSON array of proposal objects with specific fields (id, title, summary, status, proposers, voting_period_end). It also mentions the default limit of 50. However, it omits details like pagination, error handling, or whether proposals are sorted.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly covers inputs, outputs, and related tools.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, expected output structure, parameter usage, and sibling references. No annotations are needed because the description covers safety and behavior adequately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'dao' can be a name or address, and that it is an alternative to group_policy_address, implying mutual exclusivity. It also clarifies the default for 'limit' (50), which is not in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: reviewing pending or past governance proposals for a DAO. It specifies the return format (JSON array of proposal objects with fields) and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing dao_get_proposal and dao_vote.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this when you need to review pending or past governance proposals.' It explains required inputs (dao OR group_policy_address) and optional parameter (limit). The 'See also' hints at alternatives, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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