get_fund_votes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include ISS recommendations and management recommendations, but does not mention data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or what happens if ticker is missing or invalid. This is adequate but not comprehensive for behavioral transparency.

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 two concise sentences followed by a list of use-case phrases. Each sentence adds crucial info: first defines core action and scope, second details output fields and sources. No wasted words; the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers the output structure well (votes, recommendations). It does not discuss pagination, limits, or error handling, but the context is sufficient for common use cases. Slightly above average completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing specific fund managers, explaining the output content (FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN, ISS and management recommendations), and providing usage examples. It enriches understanding without being redundant.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get actual voting records from NZ fund managers... for an NZX company.' It lists the exact fund managers and types of votes. The appending use-case phrases clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_proxy_report or list_voting_policies by focusing on actual vote records.

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 provides explicit query phrases in the last sentence, such as 'how did funds vote on [company]', which gives agents clear usage signals. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving room for potential confusion in edge cases.

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