srgssr_polis_get_votation_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that results are detailed and includes acceptance/rejection info, but does not reveal rate limits, auth needs, or pagination. Barely adds behavioral value 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 a single paragraph with clear XML tags for use case and important notes. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but each section is justified.

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, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers prerequisites and use case. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 0% (no description for parameters). The description mentions votation_id in the notes and provides an example ('votation_id='v1''), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's pattern constraint. However, it does reinforce the parameter's role.

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 uses specific verbs ('Ruft ab') and clearly defines the resource ('detaillierte Resultate einer einzelnen Schweizer Volksabstimmung'). It lists output components (Ja/Nein-Anteile, Stimmbeteiligung, kantonale Ergebnisse), distinguishing it from sibling srgssr_polis_get_votations which lists votes.

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 use case tag explicitly states 'Vertiefte politische Analysen, Visualisierung kantonaler Unterschiede' and important_notes clarify prerequisite (requires votation_id from srgssr_polis_get_votations). No explicit when-not-to-use, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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