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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results come in alphabetical order, contain literal quotes with no summaries or evaluations, and each response must carry 'url' and 'atribucion' under the CC BY 4.0 license.

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?

Purpose and the fallback rule are front-loaded, and the licensing/attribution note is useful. It is somewhat run-on and packs several clauses into one long sentence, but no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns (quotes, document links, voting links, url, atribucion) and does so. An agent knows what a call yields in every parameter combination, so nothing material is missing.

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 the tema enum is self-describing, so baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of omitting both parameters (returns party and topic lists) and clarifying that a party is matched by name or acronym, adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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 with scope: returns the 29-N electoral programs of parties holding seats at dissolution, with official-document links and literal quotes by topic. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ver_elecciones_29n or buscar_votaciones, and the no-topic/no-party fallback behavior is spelled out.

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?

It gives clear operating conditions — pass tema and/or partido for program content, pass neither to get the lists of parties and topics — and explains that each party also carries a link to its group's Congress votes. It does not name an alternative sibling or state exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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