Query Governance State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and reproducibility profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the content scope (proposals, DReps, committee), with no notes on cost, latency, or freshness of the state returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the content list could have been spent instead on differentiating 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back. Listing three broad categories is a start, but an agent gets no sense of the shape, granularity, or size of the returned governance snapshot.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter explanation is needed or missing.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Query the current governance state') and lists the content categories (proposals, DReps, committee info). However, it does not distinguish itself from the many siblings that query the same domain more narrowly (cardano_query_drep_state, cardano_query_committee_state, cardano_query_ratify_state, cardano_query_constitution), leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this aggregate query versus the narrower per-entity siblings. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a cheap snapshot to prefer, or a heavier call to avoid when only DRep or committee data is needed.

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