VeVote: legacy historic proposals

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds the default testProposals=false and filtering behavior, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 that is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key details about defaults, filtering, and pagination. No unnecessary words.

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 7 parameters fully described in schema, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains default behavior and filtering options, covering all necessary context for a query tool.

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 100%, but description adds meaning by stating default for testProposals, elaborating on contractAddress with specific legacy contract addresses, and explaining pagination parameters. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 queries legacy VeVote historic proposals from a specific API endpoint, with default exclusion of test proposals, and mentions filtering and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like getVevoteProposalResults (likely for current proposals).

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 context for when to use (legacy historic proposals) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. However, given the sibling list, an agent can infer use cases. Minor improvement could be adding a note about using getVevoteProposalResults for current proposals.

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