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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context beyond the schema: the return payload shape (poll average plus win probability per pair) and hard unavailability windows during the legal blackout. It stops short of describing update cadence, polling sources, or how the probability is derived.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the payload, the second defines the availability constraint. Front-loaded with the resource identity and no filler.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when it is unavailable, which is the core an agent needs. Missing only secondary detail such as refresh frequency or the poll coverage behind 'per tested pair'.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies.

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 specific resource (French presidential 2027 runoff) and states concretely what it returns: head-to-head poll average and win probability per tested pair. That is enough to distinguish it from get_france_presidential_2027 and list_france_polls_2027, though it never explicitly names those siblings to route the agent.

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 by the word 'runoff' and by the availability constraint. The blackout windows (17-18 Apr and 1-2 May 2027) are a genuinely useful 'when not to call' signal, but there is no explicit comparison to the first-round or poll-list siblings.

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