get_election_results_for_constituency

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. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, history depth, or permissions. An output schema exists, so return format is partially excused, but the disclosure is thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the routing hint, and the Args/Returns block is compact. 'Historical election results' is repeated in the Returns section, which is mild redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the one parameter is. The absence of annotations means slightly more behavioral context could have helped, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 must compensate. It adds only 'Unique constituency ID number' over the schema's 'Constituency Id' title, which is a marginal gain — enough to establish that the ID identifies a constituency, but no format, source, or lookup guidance.

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 resource ('Get historical election results for a specific constituency') and the word 'historical' cleanly separates it from get_constituency_latest_election. An agent can pick this over the sibling constituency tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('researching constituency voting patterns, election history, or past electoral outcomes') and points to alternatives via 'See also'. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. use the latest-election sibling for current results), leaving that inference to the agent.

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