get_user_vote_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific behavioral details: it shows voted proposals, vote amounts, and withdrawable votes. This provides context beyond the annotations, such as the scope of data returned. However, it does not mention any limitations or potential issues with the default network parameter.

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 concise and front-loaded: a single sentence stating the main purpose, followed by a brief list of what is shown. No unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently communicates the tool's functionality.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (proposals, vote amounts, withdrawable votes). The context signals show no nested objects, so the output is likely simple. The description is complete for a read-only query tool with two optional parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (address and network), including default behaviors. The tool description does not add any new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 purpose: get a user's voting status across all governance proposals. It specifies exactly what information is returned (which proposals voted on, vote amounts for/against/abstain, withdrawable votes). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_vote_info' or 'get_vote_records' which may have different scopes.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vote_records' or 'get_locked_votes'. The description implies it's a comprehensive overview, but does not state when not to use or scenarios where other tools are better suited.

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