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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: ballot/personId/party/province filters apply only to the ballot page, nonvoters are omitted from results, and pagination must continue with identical filters + nextOffset. It does not restate the safety 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then filter scoping, then the session default, then the pagination instruction. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, a fully documented 8-parameter schema, and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the remaining burden is behavioral nuance — filter scope, nonvoter absence, and nextOffset continuation — all of which the description covers.

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%, so a baseline 3 would be defensible, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: it clarifies that four of the filters scope only the ballot page (not the tally), and that an omitted session resolves to the verified current session. This is real semantic lift beyond the field-level descriptions.

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 (Read) and resource set (a recorded House division, official tally, party totals, and a page of individual ballots), which is enough to distinguish it from canparl_search_votes by scope. It stops short of naming the sibling, so an agent must infer the search-then-fetch relationship (which only the schema's `number` description supplies).

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?

Explains behavioral scoping clearly (filters affect only the ballot page; nonvoters are absent) and the session default, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to choose this over canparl_search_votes or how to obtain the required division number; that routing information lives only in the schema.

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