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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the HTTP method, the list-vs-single-measure behavior, and the returned fields. However, it does not mention pagination, the fact that 'state' is required even when fetching by number, or any rate-limit/authorization behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a read tool.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the endpoint and operation modes, then gives practical example queries. There is no redundant phrasing or filler; every clause contributes to selection and invocation.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, and typical queries, but it omits important invocation details such as the required 'state' parameter, pagination behavior, and how optional filters interact. It is adequate for basic use but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds some semantic value by framing 'number' as the alternative to the state list mode, but it does not clarify 'q', 'type', 'limit', or 'offset' beyond their terse schema descriptions, and 'limit'/'offset' still lack any description.

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 identifies the resource ('Ballot measures (GET /v1/measures)') and the two distinct operations: listing measures for a state or fetching one measure by number. It also states what is returned ('full text, summary and official source URL'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from the bill, candidate, and legislator siblings.

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 explicitly gives two concrete use cases: 'what's on the ballot in X' and 'what does Amendment N do'. This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to cover ballot measures, so the omission is minor.

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