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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the returned data (projections, estimated turnout, vote distribution) but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, whether values are simulated/modeled, or any rate or caching behavior.

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 names the resource and its scope with no filler. It is efficient, though the lack of any follow-up sentence leaves behavioral and usage gaps unfilled.

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 read-style projection tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level. It omits return structure detail and any behavioral context, which is a real gap given the absence of both annotations and an output schema.

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%, with all four parameters documented in the schema (including enums for strategy and period_type), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of "szacowaną frekwencję" loosely ties to the optional turnout parameter but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 verb ("Zwraca") and resource ("projekcje poparcia partii") scoped to all 41 Sejm electoral districts, which distinguishes it by granularity from siblings like get_county_projections, get_voivodeship_projections and get_national_projection. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 phrase "we wszystkich 41 okręgach wyborczych" implies this is the district-level tool, giving implicit guidance on when to pick it over the county/voivodeship/national variants. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no reference to a named alternative.

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