get_politician_votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that it includes participation statistics, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, required permissions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. It front-loads the action and resource without any extraneous words.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the main functionality but omits details like the structure of the returned data (e.g., vote details, statistics format) and any pagination behavior. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but leaves 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (slug, page, limit) are already documented with descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3.

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 retrieves votes for a specific politician along with participation statistics. It uses a specific verb ('obtenir') and resource ('votes d'un politicien'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_votes' (which likely lists all votes) and 'get_politician' (which retrieves politician details).

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 implies usage when needing votes for a specific politician, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it could contrast with 'list_votes' for unfiltered vote listings. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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