democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data updates on voting Sunday from 12:00 and the archive contains votes since 1981. This goes beyond what annotations offer, though it could mention any rate limits or data freshness guarantees.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a use_case tag and a returns line. It front-loads the core purpose and uses structured tags for additional context. 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 no input parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, data update timing, and archive coverage. The sibling list and annotations provide further context, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details, meeting the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 lists available federal voting dates from the BFS real-time web service and serves as an entry point for BFS data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it provides resource URLs for democracy_bfs_get_vote_results, and the sibling list includes other democracy tools that cover different data scopes.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as an entry point for BFS real-time/archive data and mentions it feeds into democracy_bfs_get_vote_results, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'democracy_list_vote_dates', which appears to be a non-BFS variant. Without contrast, the agent may be uncertain which listing tool to choose.

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