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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete output artifact (PNG) and the metric computation semantics (abstention/participation as % of registered voters, aggregated above the polling station). It does not discuss permissions, size limits, or failure modes, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a parameter block and a compact example list. The examples are numerous but each one demonstrates a distinct parameter combination, so they earn their space; only the example list could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers metric semantics, geography modes and the department/commune interaction. The only shortfall is the two undocumented parameters (canton, circonscription) in an otherwise complete definition.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it defines election_id, metric values, geography values, department, commune, nuance and region with examples and defaults. Two schema properties, canton and circonscription, are never mentioned, leaving a real gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 and artifact: generates a PNG electoral map for a given election. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like visualize and export_data by naming the artifact type, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Provides five concrete worked examples covering family maps, nuance maps, national maps, abstention and participation, and states a conditional prerequisite (department required for geography='bv' unless commune is given). It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or sibling alternatives.

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