VeVote: proposal results (current governance)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, indicating a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds pagination behavior and the API endpoint, which are not fully captured by 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?

Single sentence with all essential information: action, endpoint, filters, and pagination. No redundant words; front-loaded with the primary purpose. Highly efficient.

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 a comprehensive input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core functionality but could briefly note that results are for current governance (as hinted by the title) to further aid context.

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% with meaningful descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping ('Optional filters: proposalId, support; supports pagination') but does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 the action ('Fetch aggregated voting results per support') and identifies the API endpoint. The title adds 'current governance' which distinguishes from historic proposals (e.g., getVevoteHistoricProposals), but the description itself does not explicitly mention 'current', leaving subtle differentiation to the title.

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 lists optional filters and pagination support, implying usage for retrieving filtered voting results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getVevoteHistoricProposals or getB3TRProposalsResults, nor does it provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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