srgssr_polis_get_votations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: data reaches back to 1900, canton filter resolves to locationid, year ranges map to multiple voting-day queries, and pagination uses page_size 1-100. No contradiction with 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 compact yet well-structured using use_case and important_notes sections. Every sentence adds value, and the example is a useful quick reference without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a filtered list tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, use cases, filter semantics, pagination, performance caveats, and sibling exclusions. The AI agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 carries the burden. It explains the canton filter ('wird in eine locationid aufgelöst'), year filter ('in die Abstimmungstage'), pagination behavior, and provides a concrete example (year_from=2020, year_to=2024 | canton='ZH'). The page parameter is only implied, but overall semantics are adequately conveyed.

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 action ('Ruft... ab') targeting Schweizer Volksabstimmungen und Referenden from the Polis system, and specifies what is returned (Datum, Titel, votation_id). It also differentiates from sibling tools like srgssr_polis_get_votation_results and srgssr_polis_get_elections.

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 explicitly identifies appropriate scenarios (historical analyses, journalistic research) and directs the agent to srgssr_polis_get_elections for elections. It also frames this tool as the first step for obtaining a votation_id, giving clear selection criteria.

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