get_vote_records

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by detailing the record structure (opType, opName, amount, proposalId) and operational context (mainnet-only). No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first enumerates record types, second provides field details and an alternative tool. No redundant information, perfectly 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?

With no output schema, description provides essential return structure (fields per record). Mentions mainnet-only. Could explain pagination behavior, but parameters address that. Overall sufficiently complete for a read-only query tool.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter-specific info but indirectly clarifies output structure. Sufficient given schema completeness.

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 governance voting history, listing specific transaction types (deposits, votes, withdrawals, conversions) and distinguishes it from the real-time status tool. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'voting history', making purpose unambiguous.

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 advises using 'get_user_vote_status' for real-time current voting power, providing an alternative for a related but distinct use case. Also notes 'Mainnet-only' constraint. Could mention more siblings but current guidance is clear and helpful.

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