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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the no-match fallback that returns all registered parties, the data provenance ('from every TSE list'), and the temporal boundary for candidate data ('from January 2027'). It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two sentences, information-dense with no filler, and the no-match fallback is placed at the end where it belongs. It leads with a noun phrase rather than the action, but the content is genuinely earned rather than padded.

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 provided, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the profile contents. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the missing pieces are minor (no explicit alternatives), so the definition is largely self-sufficient.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, including examples, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, alias, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clearly identifies the resource (a Guatemalan political party profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns: TSE registration/status, officers, membership history, current deputies, candidates, and news. This is specific and distinguishable from generic siblings like entity_network or entity_timeline, though it never explicitly names a sibling it competes with, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use condition or routing guidance against alternatives such as deputy_record, entity_network, or entity_timeline. The only conditional information is a fallback behavior ('With no match, lists all registered parties'), which describes an outcome rather than prescribing when this tool should be chosen.

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