Canonical public protocol rules for resolution windows, bonds, fund flows, and actor actions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by declaring the deliberate scope limits: council decision heuristics and internal lifecycle enums are intentionally withheld, which tells the agent what it cannot learn here.

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 content enumeration first and the exclusion caveat second. Every clause is informative; the long item list is dense but each entry earns its place by naming a distinct rule family.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and for a zero-param reference endpoint that is sufficient. It communicates both what is covered and what is out of scope, leaving only minor gaps such as caching or refresh behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and none is needed.

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 names the resource (canonical public protocol rules) and enumerates the specific content returned: resolution windows, human-vote timing, council review interface, bonds, fund flows, and actor actions. It is distinguishable from config-style siblings like get_factory_config or get_fees, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — this is the reference/constants lookup for protocol timing and economics — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance. The only boundary given is an exclusion list ('deliberately not exposed'), which helps scope but is not a routing rule.

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