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

Annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent/non-readonly; the description goes far beyond by disclosing what the publish runs (ballot, schedule, voter list, state law, price checks), that it charges the prepaid balance or plan, the free tier (up to 25 voters), and the fallback where an insufficient balance results in no charge and card payment at the finish link. That financial consequence and side-effect detail is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

The most consequential fact, that this spends money and requires confirmation, is placed prominently, and every sentence carries non-redundant information (checks, cost, free tier, fallback, invitations). 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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the checks performed, the billing behavior and its fallback, the invitation side-effect boundary, and the confirmation requirement, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely unstated.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the election id/slug and its provenance (list_elections or create_election_draft). The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning, 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: publishing a DRAFT election in the connected account. An agent can immediately distinguish this from create_election_draft, start_election_draft, and get_election among the siblings.

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 explicit preconditions ('Confirm with the person before calling this; it can spend their money') and clarifies the boundary of the action ('Publishing does NOT send invitations: the organizer sends them from the election page'). It does not name a competing sibling to use instead, but the draft-versus-publish distinction is clear from the required DRAFT state.

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