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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds the next-vs-past distinction, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as output format or edge cases; those are partly covered by the schema.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the two retrieval modes. It is compact and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it could explicitly mention that 'place' adds a canton-specific result; the schema covers this detail.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond aligning vote_date with next/past, which the schema already states. Baseline 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 identifies the resource (federal popular votes) and the two modes: subjects of the next vote or official results of a past vote. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but it is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from siblings such as swiss_federal_law or search_official_info.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (for federal vote subjects or results) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The schema's vote_date hint adds context, but the description itself provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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