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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result (probability per party, margin, rating). However it omits whether the numbers are forecasts vs actuals, data freshness, and any error behavior for an unknown constituency — meaningful gaps for a prediction 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?

One tight, front-loaded clause with no filler — the outcome ('who wins') leads and the payload follows. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Reasonable for a single-parameter lookup whose output fields are named, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, an agent still lacks the identifier semantics and the forecast-vs-result distinction needed to call it confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter 'number' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never says that 'number' is the constituency identifier, its numbering scheme, or its format, so the agent must guess the key input.

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?

States a specific resource and question ('Who wins the direct mandate in a constituency') and enumerates the payload (win probability per party, margin, rating). It is distinguishable from get_constituency_results by the predictive framing, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_constituency, get_constituency_dossier, or get_constituency_results.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a forecast, a live projection, or a historical record, nor when to prefer it over get_constituency_results or get_constituency_dossier.

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