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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by naming the return shape (verdict, settle_after, resolvable sources) and the provisional-vs-final trap it guards against. It does not discuss errors for unknown election/race ids, but the added context is substantive.

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 tight sentences: the core question first, the return contract second, the motivating purpose last. Nothing is wasted and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still names the verdicts and the supporting fields. With full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, including the stage enum and defaults, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only alludes to stage, ask_at and election in prose ('given count stage', 'at a given time') without adding format or default semantics. 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 precise verb and resource: decides whether a question about a given count stage is answerable at a given time, and enumerates the verdicts returned. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like when_final or election_status without opening any 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?

The closing sentence gives the concrete situation it exists for (stopping questions that read the provisional count when they mean the final one), which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives such as when_final or election_status and when to prefer them instead.

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