current_election

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool provides candidates and weighted tallies and that winners are promoted to the market, which is useful context beyond the empty schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication requirements. For a simple query tool this is acceptable, but more explicit disclosure would be stronger.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary subject ('The open weekly election') and then provides concrete details (candidates, weighted tallies, promotion to market). Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, and it is appropriately short for a simple resource.

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 zero-parameter read-only query, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what data to expect (candidates and tallies) and the outcome (winners promoted). There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the content. It could be more explicit about the return shape (e.g., array of objects), but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% (both an empty properties object). The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist. Since the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, this score 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 clearly identifies a specific resource (the open weekly election) and states what it contains: candidates and weighted tallies. It also notes that winners are promoted to the market, giving a clear sense of the tool's role. This distinguishes it from siblings like vote (which is for casting votes) and market listings.

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 wording 'The open weekly election' implies it is a read-only query to inspect current election state, and the mention of winners being promoted to the market hints at its relevance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vote or market_listings), nor any exclusion conditions. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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