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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'aggregate' nature of the result but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error behavior; given the existing annotations, this is an acceptable baseline.

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 sentence with the core action and result front-loaded. It is compact and free of filler, though the available space could have been used to clarify parameter semantics or usage context.

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?

The output schema and annotations provide useful information about safety and return shape, and the schema enumerates all parameter options. However, the description omits cohort semantics and inaccurately describes the window as bounded when 'all' is allowed, so an agent is not fully equipped to make all parameter choices correctly.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only vaguely references an exact question-set identifier and a bounded time window. The cohort parameter is not explained at all, and 'bounded time window' conflicts with the window enum option 'all', which is unbounded.

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 verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('aggregate public cohort results'), scoped by an exact question-set identifier and a time window. It is distinguishable from most siblings by its subject matter, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with other get_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_daily_question_set or get_ballot_receipt. No exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers are provided, leaving tool selection mostly to inference from the tool name.

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