srgssr_polis_get_votations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds domain-specific details: data since 1900, filtering by year/canton, pagination with page_size 1-100. No contradictions, and the extra context is valuable.

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 highly concise: one sentence for core purpose, followed by structured tags (<use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>) that efficiently convey extra context without redundancy.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and presence of output schema (not shown), the description covers use case, alternatives, important notes, and an example. The only minor gap is not detailing the return structure beyond date/title/votation_id, but output schema covers that.

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?

The input schema is detailed with constraints, but schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description mentions filtering by year, canton, and pagination with page_size, adding meaning beyond schema. However, it doesn't cover all parameters explicitly, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Swiss popular votes and referendums, returning date, title, and votation_id. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool srgssr_polis_get_elections for elections, making purpose specific and differentiated.

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 section provides explicit scenarios (historical analysis, journalism, first step for results) and clearly states to use srgssr_polis_get_elections for elections instead, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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