get_glosowanie

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it returns attack rate per club with vote types (yes/no/abstain/absent) and lists clubs. No side effects or auth constraints mentioned, but sufficiently transparent for a read-only 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?

Two succinct sentences covering purpose, content, parameter format, and citation. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (per-club breakdown with vote types). The ID format and example are included. No gaps remain.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter. Description reinforces the format with an example and clarifies the structure 'kadencja.posiedzenie.numer', adding value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a single Sejm vote with per-club breakdown. The verb 'get' combined with 'Pojedyncze głosowanie' distinguishes it from siblings like search_glosowania (search) and get_glosowanie_razem (likely aggregated).

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?

Implies usage for a single vote by stating 'Pojedyncze głosowanie' and specifying the ID format, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_glosowania or get_glosowanie_razem. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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