reunion_get_presidential_2022_round1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions sorting by vote count descending and the row structure, but fails to disclose that the tool supports filtering via parameters (commune, candidate, polling_station, limit) or that it is a read-only query. No info on performance, rate limits, or side effects is provided.

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 composed of four sentences, each carrying distinct, useful information: election specification, candidate list, row structure, and sorting + schema reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The candidate list is slightly verbose but provides helpful context and is not excessive.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers output structure and sorting, but omits details on return format, error handling, and the effect of parameters (e.g., limit). It mentions schema matches another tool but does not elaborate on that schema. Overall, it is functional but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. Baseline of 3 applies as the description offers no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool provides per-polling-station results for a specific election (April 10, 2022 presidential 1st round) in La Réunion, lists the 12 candidates, and explains the row structure. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the schema matches reunion_get_legislative_2022_round1, indicating a parallel but distinct election dataset.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other election tools (e.g., reunion_get_legislative_2022_round1). The mention of schema matching is implicit, but no context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions is given, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name alone for differentiation.

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