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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions grouping, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, any pagination or rate limits, return format, or side effects. The limited detail falls short for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is straightforward. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return values, how grouping interacts with the groupBy parameter, or any constraints. Given sibling tools, it could benefit from clarifying its distinction from search_voteringar.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's reference to grouping by parti/valkrets aligns with the groupBy enum but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameters like rm, bet, or punkt.

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 description 'Hämta voteringar grupperade per parti/valkrets' clearly states the action (fetch), resource (voteringar), and grouping scope (per party/constituency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_voteringar, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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