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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return content (line, tally, defectors) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any limits or side effects. For a query tool this is adequate but leaves some transparency gaps.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but not wasteful, and the party code list is compact and useful.

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 simple query tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned well. However, it omits any explanation of the n parameter and provides no usage context, leaving the definition minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats the party codes already in the schema and does not explain the n parameter, which lacks a schema description. It adds little semantic meaning beyond the structured data.

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?

The description states a specific resource and data returned: a party's line in votes, the tally, and defector count. It clearly separates this from generic vote data, though it does not explicitly name which sibling tool to use instead. The inclusion of party codes further specifies the scope.

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 or alternatives are provided. The description implies the tool is for getting a party's voting line but does not explain when to choose it over siblings like hur_rostade or votering. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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