get_motion_results

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: recorded motions return per-voter data, while anonymous reactions return only totals. This goes beyond the annotations and provides key transparency.

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 concise with two sentences (first line + second line) that front-load the main purpose. Every part is useful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (which handles return value specifics), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the two possible result types, which is the key behavioral nuance. The annotations already cover safety aspects. 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (motionId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explicitly describe motionId, though the tool name and context imply it is the motion ID. Since the description does not add significant meaning beyond what is obvious, it only marginally compensates for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get results for a motion.' It distinguishes between recorded motions (which return per-voter names/choices) and anonymous motions/elections (only totals/turnout), which differentiates it from siblings like list_motions or get_meeting.

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 for when to use the tool, explaining how results differ based on motion type. It implicitly advises against expecting individual votes for anonymous motions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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