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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so 'Changes nothing' largely repeats that. The description adds genuinely new context: the price comes from the authoritative function used by the payment page and publish step, and it enumerates the payer states (free, plan, prepaid balance, card) — useful context an agent cannot get from the 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?

A single dense but front-loaded sentence that leads with the return value and the timing note, with no filler. The parenthetical '(government ID, texts for a small roster)' is somewhat clipped but earns its place as example pricing components.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return shape (voter count, tier, total composition, payer). Combined with 100% schema coverage on the input, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly; only failure/edge behavior for an unknown election id is unaddressed.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'election' (id or slug, sourced from list_elections/create_election_draft). The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (returns the price of one election) and additionally enumerates what the price is composed of (voter count, tier, total breakdown, payer). It is unambiguous about what it returns, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling get_price_quote, whose name suggests overlapping pricing scope, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Ask again after the voter list changes' gives real timing guidance, and 'as it stands' implies a current-state read. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_price_quote or get_platform_overview, so usage context is only implied.

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