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

With no annotations, the description transparently discloses the data source (official Federal Chancellery/VoteInfo), languages (DE/FR/IT/EN), and that subjects are provided 'once announced'. It does not detail update frequency or caching, but for a read-only info tool, this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and covers all essential details without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, content, source, and languages. It does not specify behavior when no votes are upcoming, but this is minor given the clear domain.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description correctly explains what the tool returns (dates and ballot subjects). The schema coverage is 100% implicitly, and the description adds context about data source and languages beyond the empty 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 the tool provides 'next Swiss federal vote dates' and 'subjects on the ballot' in multiple languages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'commune_tax' or 'get_canton' which focus on other domains.

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 implies usage for retrieving upcoming federal vote information, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives. However, the context is clear and no exclusion is necessary given the tool's unique purpose.

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