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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it discloses what comes back (the vote plus a distribution by clubs), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing error behavior or the shape of the club breakdown.

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 short fragments with zero filler, and the returned content is front-loaded ahead of the id hint. The telegraphic style borders on cryptic, which costs it the top score, but nothing 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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (single vote + club distribution, id format). It leaves unstated what the club breakdown contains, whether the vote's metadata is included, and how ids are obtained, so an agent still has gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single id parameter, and it does supply a concrete format example ("10.50.108"). It does not say where such ids come from (presumably search_glosowania results), so the compensation is partial but effective for a one-parameter tool.

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: fetches a single vote ("Jedno głosowanie") together with its per-club breakdown, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_glosowania (search) and get_glosowanie_razem (aggregate). It is clear but written in terse note form, so the operation verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

The word "Jedno" implies this is the single-record lookup versus the search/aggregate siblings, so usage is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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