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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the listing reflects data the pack *actually holds*, and it reports coverage depth at state/county/precinct levels, which tells the agent what to expect. It stops short of describing output shape or result size, hence not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Slight redundancy between 'omit it to see full coverage' and 'discover what is covered', but each sentence carries useful routing information.

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 single-optional-param read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (state/year/office combinations and levels) and how to scope it. The only gap is the concrete shape of the response, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the state param is already documented as an optional postal code or full name. The description adds the effect of omission ('omit it to see full coverage'), which the schema does not state, so it goes slightly beyond the baseline 3.

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 (List) and resource (state/year/office coverage combinations plus geographic levels), which is precise and unique among siblings. An agent can distinguish it from election_results and election_race_summary without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names both alternatives (election_results, election_race_summary) and the condition that selects this tool: check coverage before querying, or discover what exists. The when-to-use is stated directly rather than implied.

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