Résultats électoraux

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that the tool queries data and lists many actions, but does not add much beyond annotations. The detailed action explanations provide some behavioral context (e.g., 'panel actions avoid loops'), which is helpful.

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 long but well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then lists territorial levels, base actions, and panel actions separately. It is front-loaded with essential info. However, it could be more concise; some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter names in action descriptions).

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's complexity (36 parameters, many actions, output schema exists), the description covers a lot: territorial levels, all actions with their required parameters, and panel actions that avoid loops. It doesn't explain return values (output schema covers that) or all parameter details, but it is fairly complete for a complex tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it mentions some parameter names in action contexts (e.g., election_id, commune_code), it does not explain their format, allowed values, or semantics for most of the 36 parameters. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand all parameters correctly.

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 'Requête les données électorales françaises (1999-2026)' — a specific verb (requête) and resource (French election data). It lists multiple distinct actions and panel actions, differentiating them from sibling tools like query_sociodem or query_elus.

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 explains territorial levels and lists actions with their required parameters (e.g., 'compare_elections requires election_id, compare_to_election, and a territory code'). It also notes that panel actions avoid loops, providing usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear.

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