get_vote_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond stating what data is returned, which is already known from annotations.

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 concisely convey the tool's purpose and use case. No redundant information; front-loaded with what it does and ends with usage advice.

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?

Lists four specific return values (JST balance, available votes, total deposited, cast votes) which covers the main outputs. No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient detail for a read-only info tool. Could mention pagination or rate limits, but not essential.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (address: TRON address default configured wallet; network: Network default mainnet). Description does not add extra parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves voting power info including JST balance, available votes, deposited votes, and cast votes. It positions itself as the key tool to check before voting, distinguishing it from siblings like get_user_vote_status but not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 'This is the key tool to check before voting' providing clear when-to-use advice. Does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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