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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: every response carries «url» and «atribucion», the CC BY 4.0 license obliges citing and linking the source, and AI-generated summaries are flagged as such. It does not cover response shape limits or errors, but it adds real value beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the attribution obligation. The long enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though the density is high and some list items could be trimmed.

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 carry the return contract, and it does: it enumerates the record's fields, the presence/flagging of AI summaries, and the url/atribucion fields. For a single-resource read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the accepted format example (XV-88-85) and the alternative of passing the page address. Per the rules, high coverage sets the baseline at 3; the description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific resource (a single votación) and enumerates exactly what the full record contains: result, count, per-group vote, defectors, absentees, plain-language summary, norm, sources and link. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling voto_de_diputado (individual deputy vote) or buscar_votaciones, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this once it has an id and wants the full detail page rather than a search result. The id's provenance is stated in the schema description, not the tool description. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative routing is given.

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