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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the scope restriction to 'regular ballot boxes' and the provenance ('CEC final results'), which tells the agent what data is and isn't included.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the returned payload before the search mechanics, with no filler. It is a long run-on list, but each clause carries distinct information about the result set.

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, the description does the work of enumerating return values, which is the right call. The one gap is that it doesn't say whether a name query returns a single town or a list of matches — relevant for a tool named 'find'.

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 description's mention of four search languages and CBS codes largely restates the query and lang parameter documentation. It adds no syntax, normalization, or fallback behavior beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('how a town, village or kibbutz voted') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: vote shares, hypothetical Knesset, most-similar town, CBS cluster, and first-place list since 2003. This is clearly distinct from every sibling (coalition, formation, news, results, wealth, what-can-change), none of which are locality lookups.

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?

It explains how to query ('search by name in Hebrew, English, Russian or French, or by CBS locality code') but never says when to reach for this versus a sibling like get_results, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied by the resource scope rather than stated.

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