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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the parameter names: no indication of the metric computed, the data window, or whether results are aggregate or per-vote. It essentially restates the signature.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy. For a tool with zero schema description coverage, one fragment is too little to be called appropriately sized.

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, 0% parameter description coverage, and a 2-required-parameter signature, the description should explain what is returned and what the IDs mean. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the result format or validate its inputs.

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 must carry the burden, but it only re-lists the parameter names (posel_a, posel_b) without saying they are MP identifiers, what ID space they come from, or whether order matters. No meaning is added beyond the schema's own property names.

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?

The Polish description names a specific computed quantity: voting agreement ('zgodność głosowania') between two MPs, and binds it to the two named parameters. An agent can distinguish it from get_glosowanie (a single vote) and search_glosowania (search), though it never states the output form (percentage, count, ratio).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as get_glosowanie or search_glosowania. Nothing indicates prerequisites, the time period covered, or what result a caller should expect, so the agent must infer the use case.

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