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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the idempotency sentence is partly redundant with structured data. However, the description adds genuinely new behavior: the skip-if-present semantics, the effect on price ('updated price'), and that a larger list can change pricing on published elections. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: scope first, then idempotency/return, then the published-election exclusion. Nothing is buried and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return payload (count added and updated price). Combined with the safety annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so email/name/unit semantics and the 2000-item cap are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the field list (email, optional name and unit) without adding format or ordering guidance, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (eligible voters / roster) with an explicit scope qualifier: DRAFT election. The draft-vs-published distinction lets an agent separate this from the publish_election and list_elections siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives both the when and the when-not: use for draft elections, and for a published election the organizer adds voters on the election page instead. It also implies the eligibility constraint (email; text/mail contacts handled by the organizer), so the agent knows the boundaries of a valid call.

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