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 discloses the output scope ('pełny okres agregacji' and 16 regions) but says nothing about safety profile, permissions, response size for 16 regions, or behavior when data is missing for a region.

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 with the verb and scope stated immediately and no filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves obvious questions unanswered.

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 and no annotations, the description must convey enough to call correctly; it names the returned quantity and its geographic granularity, which is the minimum viable. It omits return shape hints (per-party/per-region structure) and any prerequisite for building a valid period_key.

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 two enums and example period_key formats, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how strategy or turnout interact with the returned projections).

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 a precisely scoped resource: party support projections broken down into the 16 voivodeships for the full aggregation period. This granularity implicitly separates it from get_county_projections, get_district_projections and get_national_projection, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the text when voivodeship granularity is preferable to county, district or national, nor whether it should call get_aggregation_periods first to obtain a valid period_key.

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