democracy_get_cantonal_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the returned fields (Stimmberechtigte, gültige Stimmen, etc.) and confirming national total inclusion, which goes beyond the 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 and well-structured, with clear sections for use case, parameter description, and return value description. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 has an output schema (though not shown) and annotations, the description covers the necessary behavioral details. It includes return value structure and complements the schema. Minor gap: no error handling guidance, but not critical.

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 already provides a description for vote_number. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond reiterating the role of vote_number. Schema coverage appears high, 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 returns cantonal results for a federal vote, specifying the verb (gibt zurück) and resource (Abstimmungsresultate aller 26 Kantone). It includes a use case but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like democracy_bfs_get_vote_results.

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 mentions when to use (cantonal comparison and Ständemehr analysis) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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