reunion_get_legislative_2022_round2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output schema matches round1 and lists key fields (commune, circonscription, bureau de vote, candidate identity, counts, vote share) and sorting order (by vote count descending). This sufficiently discloses what the tool returns without contradictions.

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 paragraph that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: election identity, schema reference, field list, sorting, and practical use case. It does not require an output schema because the fields are explicitly listed.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds clarifying context beyond the schema, such as commune is a 'name prefix match', circumscription is a 'label prefix match', polling_station is an 'exact code', and limit has a max of 500 and default of 100. This enhances usability.

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 explicitly states the tool returns per-polling-station results for the June 19, 2022 legislative elections, 2nd round, for La Réunion. It references the same schema as reunion_get_legislative_2022_round1, clearly distinguishing it from other legislative tools by election and round.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is useful for identifying elected deputies (top vote per circonscription). It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though siblings are contextually different.

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