check_vote_eligibility

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return semantics ('returns the reason if not'), which is valuable non-structured information, but it never states that this is a read-only/non-mutating call, whether it errors versus returning a falsy result, or what inputs (e.g. token address vs symbol) it expects.

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, zero waste, with the core question front-loaded and the return hint second. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It leaves the token parameter, input formats, and the shape of a positive versus negative response unexplained.

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 coverage is 0% and all three parameters are bare strings/integers. The description mentions 'wallet' and 'milestone' only in passing and says nothing about the 'token' parameter, expected address formats, or whether milestone is an index or ID, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific check (vote eligibility) on specific resources (wallet, milestone) as a direct question, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (build_vote_tx) or distinguish itself from list_open_votes, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Use is only implied: 'now' hints this is a pre-flight check before calling build_vote_tx or build_finalize_vote_tx, but the description never says when to call it versus those siblings or what to do with a negative answer. An agent must infer the workflow.

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