get_delegation_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action and subject, without clarifying what data is returned (delegatee? delegated balance?), whether it reads on-chain state, dependency on the token being an ERC20Votes contract, or behavior when the address has not delegated. This is a significant gap for a read tool.

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 information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to conveying the core purpose.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter getter with full schema coverage, but no output schema exists. The description is somewhat complete for a straightforward read operation, yet it fails to specify what 'delegation info' includes or any prerequisites, which could lead to incorrect invocation or misinterpretation of results. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, with each parameter providing a description (e.g., network gives examples and default, tokenAddress specifies ERC20Votes). The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('voting delegation information') and specifies the target ('an address'). It implies a read-only query about delegation, somewhat distinguishing it from related tools like get_voting_power or delegate_votes. However, it does not detail exactly what 'delegation information' includes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., ERC20Votes token), clarify that this is for governance delegation rather than Cosmos staking delegations, or reference any sibling tools. The schema's network default provides limited context but no usage direction.

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