democracy_bfs_get_vote_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that data is updated continuously on voting Sunday and returns results per template, which provides useful behavioral context 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 at about five sentences, well-structured with a use_case tag and clear sections. Every sentence adds value 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 tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, output JSON schema available, annotations present), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and real-time behavior. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 fully describes both parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., result_url has maxLength, minLength; level has enum values explained). The description does not need to add more, but the schema itself is comprehensive.

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 fetches real-time or archive voting results from BFS. It specifies the use case and distinguishes from the sibling tool democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates by referencing its output as input.

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 includes a use_case tag indicating when to use (election results at various levels, especially on voting Sunday). It mentions the prerequisite of using the URL from democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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