srgssr_polis_get_elections

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, open world. The description adds historical range and filter options, but does not disclose pagination behavior or other traits beyond 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 concise and uses structured XML tags for use case, notes, and example. It is efficient but could be slightly more compact.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers essential context: data range, filtering, and output fields. Pagination is implied by page_size but not explained.

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 descriptions are 0% covered. The description mentions filters for year and canton, and gives an example with year_from, but omits year_to, page_size, and page parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 retrieves Swiss National Council, Council of States, and cantonal elections from the Polis system, specifying the output (date, name, ID). This is distinct from sibling tools like votations.

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 use cases (historical analysis, journalism) and notes (data since 1900, filter by year and canton), but does not explicitly guide when to use this over alternatives like srgssr_polis_get_votations or clearly state when not to use.

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