koios_pool_voting_power_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not disclose behavior around pagination, filtering, or response format. For a read-only query tool, the lack of any safety or behavioral notes is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without wasting words.

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?

Despite having 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain the output structure, how to filter by pool or epoch, or the broader context of voting power history. Given the complexity and many sibling tools, more detail is needed for a complete description.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter (limit, order, offset, select, _epoch_no, _pool_bech32) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'voting power history for stake pools'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as koios_pool_history or koios_drep_voting_power_history.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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