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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: results are preliminary until the CEC publishes the official count, and bloc assignment is an editorial mapping rather than official data — both affect how much an agent should trust the numbers.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the content inventory leads. The parentheticals (editorial mapping, CEC publication) are load-bearing rather than padding, though the sentence is delivered as a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the four data families. What remains unstated is the response shape (per-list objects, totals, ordering), which an agent would have to discover by calling.

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?

There is a single optional lang parameter with an enum, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description says nothing about language handling, which is acceptable at the baseline but adds no value beyond structured data.

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 enumerates the exact payload — seats and votes per list, the 3.25% threshold, bloc mapping, and count status — which is far more specific than the title 'Election results'. It doesn't name a verb or explicitly contrast with siblings like check_coalition or get_what_can_change, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for the tally itself, but there is no when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer check_coalition or get_what_can_change instead. The note that results are preliminary until the CEC publishes is the only decision-relevant guidance.

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