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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation scope (every party/candidate, and the geographic granularity), but says nothing about ordering, empty/partial results, or whether figures are provisional.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler and the aggregate content front-loaded. It is fragmentary rather than ungrammatical, and nothing is wasted, though it reads more like a label than a complete instruction.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the essentials are covered and the description hints at the return shape (votes and shares per party/candidate per unit). It still omits whether a single call returns one unit or all units, and whether totals/turnout accompany the party rows.

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%, including the level enum and the unit slug format with an 'omit for all' rule, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's 'in the country, abroad or by oblast' merely echoes the level enum rather than adding semantics such as whether unit accepts multiple oblasts or is ignored when level is country.

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 a specific resource: votes and shares per party/candidate, broken down by country, abroad, or oblast. That is clearly distinct from list_elections, though it never names the sibling or states the verb 'retrieve results for an election' 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 only implied: it is evidently the tool to call for result figures, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention that election_id must come from list_elections (that hint lives only in the schema), and no stated exclusions versus other data tools.

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