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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content — that the single-measure mode returns full text, summary and official source URL. However, it says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset parameters, nor that state is required even when fetching a single measure by number.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its two modes, followed by intent examples. Dense and waste-free, though the parenthetical endpoint reference is marginally redundant for an agent that only needs invocation guidance.

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 six parameters, no output schema and no enums, the description covers the two access patterns and the shape of the single-measure response. It leaves gaps an agent would care about: pagination behavior, what the filter parameters do, and the fact that state is always required.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the key 'number' semantics with a format example ('Amendment 1') and clarifies that 'state' scopes the list, but it adds nothing about q, type, limit or offset, leaving the filter and pagination parameters to the schema alone.

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 the resource (ballot measures), the underlying endpoint, and both operating modes: a state-level list or a single measure fetched by number. That is a specific verb+resource statement. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling get_measure_statutes, so an agent must still infer the boundary between them.

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?

It gives two concrete user-intent triggers — 'what's on the ballot in X' and 'what does Amendment N do' — which map cleanly onto the list and single-measure modes. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_measure_statutes instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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