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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context by noting per-stage confidence/citation and a staleness flag, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or lookup failure behavior for an unknown election id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core purpose before enumerating contents. The long parenthetical list of count stages is dense but each element is informative, so it earns its place.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single parameter plus annotations are well covered. The description is complete enough for a read-only lookup, with the only gap being sibling-level routing guidance.

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% and the single election parameter is fully documented with an example id in the schema, so the description adds nothing about the id format. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 specific resource and scope: the full record of one election, enumerated as races, poll-close times, count stage windows, authority, and sources. This lets an agent distinguish it from a narrow lookup, though it never names its closest sibling (when_final) that likely returns only a subset of this data.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives from the sibling set (e.g. when_final for a single result time, upcoming_elections for future contests). The agent must infer selection purely from the content list.

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