Query Ratification State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the word "current" (implying a point-in-time snapshot) and nothing about what the result contains, freshness, or whether governance actions mid-ratification are included — minimal value beyond the 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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is the only place an agent can learn what "ratification state" comprises (active governance actions, their vote tallies, thresholds, expiry). None of that is provided, and the boundary against cardano_query_gov_state is never drawn, leaving the definition thin for an otherwise simple 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is self-explanatory and the description does not need to compensate.

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 contains a verb ("Query") and a resource ("governance ratification state"), so the purpose is decipherable, but it is essentially the title restated with the word "current" inserted. It offers no differentiation from close siblings such as cardano_query_gov_state, cardano_query_drep_state, or cardano_query_committee_state, which an agent must choose among.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other governance query tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives named; the agent is left to infer that "ratification state" is distinct from "gov state" and "drep state" on its own.

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