koios_proposal_voting_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not mention pagination behavior, response format, aggregation details, or any special constraints. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond what the schema and name already suggest.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. However, it is somewhat terse and mostly restates the tool name, providing only slightly more detail ('specific governance proposal'). It is concise but not richly informative.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description does not clarify what constitutes a 'voting summary' or how it differs from sibling tools like proposal_votes. Given the existence of multiple voting-related tools and the need to select and invoke correctly, this description is insufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema documents all five parameters adequately. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing that the proposal is specific, but it does not explain how the pagination/filtering parameters relate to the summary output beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Get voting summary for a specific governance proposal' uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('voting summary') and scope ('specific governance proposal'). It clearly distinguishes from list-oriented siblings like proposal_list and vote_list, though it could be more explicit about what the summary includes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as koios_proposal_votes (which likely returns raw votes) or koios_vote_list. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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