SRG SSR Polis – Abstimmungsresultate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what data the tool returns for one votation, and it does not contradict the annotations. It omits error/rate-limit details, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact and well-structured, with use_case, important_notes, and example sections that each earn their place. The core retrieval meaning is front-loaded, and there is no unnecessary prose.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It provides purpose, source of the required ID, a concrete example, and confirms the non-mutating nature via annotations.

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. It does so by explaining that votation_id must be obtained from srgssr_polis_get_votations and by providing the concrete example 'v1'. This adds meaningful provenance beyond the schema's pattern and title, even though it does not explain the ID's full format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ruft detaillierte Resultate einer einzelnen Schweizer Volksabstimmung ab' and lists concrete result content (Ja/Nein-Anteile, Stimmbeteiligung, kantonale Ergebnisse, Annahme/Ablehnung). The word 'einzelnen' clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling srgssr_polis_get_votations, which lists 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 gives a clear use case ('Vertiefte politische Analysen, Visualisierung kantonaler Unterschiede') and an important dependency: the votation_id must come from srgssr_polis_get_votations. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the singular scope and the cross-reference make the intended usage clear.

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