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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the methodology ('Multilevel Bottom-Up Model') and that the vote figure is an estimate, which helps interpretation, but says nothing about required inputs, turnout/strategy effects, or any operational constraints.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the return value (national projection + valid-vote estimate) before the qualifier about the model and period. No wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly sketches the return (projection plus estimated valid votes). However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves the agent without routing context against 12 sibling tools.

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 including enums for strategy and period_type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: returns a national (ogólnopolską) projection of party support and an estimated valid-vote count. The explicit 'ogólnopolska' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the county/district/voivodeship projection siblings, though those are never named.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the regional siblings (get_county_projections, get_voivodeship_projections) that an agent must choose between. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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