koios_voter_proposal_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns governance proposals for a voter, but does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, what happens when _voter_id is omitted, or whether any side effects occur. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but beyond that the behavioral context is minimal.

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, concise sentence with no redundant phrases or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

With no output schema, moderate parameter complexity (five params, pagination, filtering), and no annotations, the description leaves key context unstated, such as the response structure, the optionality/behavior of _voter_id, and how pagination works. The brief description is not enough for an agent to fully understand expected inputs and outputs.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including _voter_id's meaning as 'Voter ID (DRep, SPO, or CC member)'. The description adds little beyond restating the voter focus, so it neither enhances nor harms the schema-driven understanding. A baseline score 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 'Get governance proposals relevant to a specific voter' clearly states the action (get) and resource (governance proposals) while scoping it to a specific voter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like koios_proposal_list. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'relevant to a specific voter' implies the tool should be used when querying voter-governance interactions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like koios_proposal_list. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making the guidance primarily implied rather than explicit.

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