build_finalize_vote_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and discloses permission ('anyone'), success criteria (quorum + yes > no), and failure/retry behavior ('team can retry after a cooldown'). It stops short of explaining that the unsigned tx must be signed and sent, or what state change closing causes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and permission, then the outcome rule. No filler.

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?

Lacks any parameter explanation and doesn't describe what the unsigned transaction contains or requires for signing. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions 'token' or 'milestone'. For a 2-parameter tool with no schema documentation, this leaves the agent without meaning for either required field.

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?

States a specific verb ('close a vote') and resource, and the 'Unsigned tx (anyone)' framing distinguishes it from execution tools and voting siblings. An agent can tell it builds a transaction to finalize a vote, not to cast one.

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?

Specifies the condition 'after it ends' and the outcome rule, giving clear context for when to use. It does not name alternatives like build_vote_tx or list_open_votes, but the timing condition is explicit.

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