B3TR: Proposal results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true. The description adds behavioral context: returns proposals with voting results and CIDs, requires further steps to get full data, and that using proposalId avoids unnecessary fetching. No contradictions, and it provides useful workflow info beyond annotations.

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 longer than necessary but well-structured with bold emphasis and a numbered list. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loading of the main purpose and critical usage note makes it effective. Slight redundancy between the IMPORTANT note and workflow step 1, but overall acceptable.

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?

Complete in context: explains what the tool returns, how to use it for specific vs general queries, and provides a full workflow involving other tools for a complete view. With annotations covering safety and output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a usage note about proposalId but no additional semantic details for other parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states it gets B3TR proposal results, specifying the API endpoint and the data returned (voting results and IPFS description CIDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools through the integrated workflow that references getIPFSContent, getDiscourseTopic, and getB3TRProposalComments, making its role in the broader process explicit.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use proposalId for specific proposals (with caution not to fetch all), and a numbered workflow detailing steps from this tool through related tools. It clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, including when to browse all proposals or use other tools for full details.

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