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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: dates carry source attribution and a tentative/changeable status, and it warns the agent to confirm actionable dates with the state election authority. Rate limits and pagination are not mentioned, which is a minor 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by status/sourcing metadata, then the exclusion and caveat. No filler and every clause carries information an agent would act on.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description covers scope, sourcing, and caveats well. The only unaddressed detail is the exact behavior when the state filter is omitted (national-only vs. all jurisdictions), which is left to inference.

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 schema's own state description is strong ('public records being researched, not the user's location'). The description only echoes that the filter is optional and jurisdictional, so it neither needs to nor does add much beyond the structured field.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus scope: 'Return the published 2026 federal general election date and congressional primary/runoff schedule.' It also draws a clear negative boundary ('Does not include every local election, registration deadline or polling location'), which separates it from siblings like get_election_results and search_candidates without opening either 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?

States the optional state filter and explicitly lists what the tool will not cover, nudging the agent to other sources for local races and deadlines. It does not name the specific sibling tools to use instead, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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