Proposal votes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether votes include abstentions, whether voter addresses or weights are returned, or whether results are paginated.

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?

Six words with no waste, but it is a noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of action and scope, so the brevity comes at the cost of information rather than from efficiency.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does not — the shape of a vote record (voter, option, weight, timestamp) is entirely undisclosed. For a tool whose whole value is its return payload, this is a substantial gap.

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 the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'proposal id' in the schema. The description adds only the confirmation that the id refers to a GovDAO proposal; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 fragment identifies the resource (votes) and narrows scope to a single GovDAO proposal, which is marginally more than the title. But there is no verb and no differentiation from the sibling gno_governance, which an agent could easily mistake for the same data at a different granularity.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus gno_governance, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a proposal id must first be obtained). An agent must guess from the name alone.

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