get_evoting_info

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

No annotations exist. The description discloses that it queries and shows information, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, or discuss authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second gives a usage example. No redundant information.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (meetings, dates, voting periods) and a special case (statistics). No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on output structure would improve completeness, but it's adequate for a simple query.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'statistics' for ratios), but mostly the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 it queries TDCC shareholder e-voting information, including upcoming meetings, dates, and voting periods. It distinguishes well from siblings (e.g., director shareholding, fund NAV) by focusing on e-voting.

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 mentions using 'statistics' for participation ratios, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it.

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