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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that DRAFT elections additionally return publishing blockers, the exact price the publish step would charge, and the payer (free, plan, prepaid balance, card), and it clarifies that only counts are reported with per-question results living on the election page link.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the core resource, then layers the DRAFT-specific behavior and the counts-only caveat. The enumeration of returned fields is dense but each clause carries information; a slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so thoroughly, including the special DRAFT case and the counts-only limitation. It is close to complete for an agent to call it correctly, missing only explicit guidance on when this is preferred over its siblings.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema fully documents 'election' including its source (id or slug from list_elections or create_election_draft). The description adds no further parameter semantics, 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?

The description states a specific resource ('One election or survey in the connected account') and enumerates the aspects reported (schedule, ballot, voters, turnout, quorum, links), making the retrieval intent unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from list_elections by scoping to a single item, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_elections, get_price_quote, or publish_election. The only routing hint ('from list_elections or create_election_draft') lives in the schema's parameter description, not the tool description, so the description itself provides no usage context or exclusions.

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