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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden. The minimal phrase 'Voter pour une candidature ou s'abstenir' discloses no side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or consequences of voting. For a consequential action like voting, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While extremely brief, it earns its place by stating the core action. The brevity contributes to missing context, but conciseness itself is well-handled.

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 and no annotations, the description does not adequately support correct invocation. It omits the conditional candidate_id requirement, the relationship to sibling voting tools, and any behavioral expectations. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters and the conditional requirement for candidate_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Voter' – to vote) and a specific resource ('pour une candidature' – for a candidacy), including the alternative to abstain. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'vote' tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of the sibling 'vote' tool, nor when to choose 'candidate' versus 'abstain'. The conditional requirement of candidate_id when choice=candidate is left entirely to the schema.

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