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

No annotations are supplied and no output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the substantive return content (outcome, per-party line with tally, party defectors), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or result format.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and an efficient enumeration of the returned detail. The Swedish/English duplication is redundant but harmless and standard for a bilingual audience.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool whose output has no schema, the description adequately conveys what an agent gets back. The main omission is any linkage to the sibling tools that supply the required id or partition the same domain.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and that schema text already explains the id and its provenance. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (retrieve one vote 'i sin helhet') and enumerates the payload: outcome, each party's line and tally, and dissenting members. This clearly distinguishes it from lighter siblings like partiets_linje or hur_rostade, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 description offers no when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to the many related siblings (hur_rostade, partiets_linje, senaste_voteringar). The only routing hint lives in the input schema's parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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