Federal votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (subjects for next vote vs. results for past vote), which is not in annotations. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits like data freshness or error handling, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the two primary outcomes. There is no filler or repetition; every word contributes to the purpose.

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 a complete schema (100% param descriptions), an output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It mentions the key distinction between future subjects and past results, which is the main contextual nuance. It does not need to detail return structure since an output schema exists.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (place, language, vote_date) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's core function: returning subjects of the next federal popular vote or official results of a past vote. It clearly identifies the resource (federal votes) and the two operational modes. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the sibling list (transport, weather, law) makes the purpose distinct enough.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a user asks about federal vote subjects or results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_official_info for other federal topics'. The usage context is clear from the description but not formally stated.

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