democracy_get_party_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the decoding of numeric codes into labels and the return format (JSON with links to committees). No contradictions 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 well-structured with sections, but slightly lengthy (three paragraphs). Every sentence adds value, and the use case and code decoding are useful.

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 simple read-only tool with good annotations and a single well-described parameter, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. It could mention potential errors or rate limits but is largely complete.

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 schema itself provides a good description of the vote_number parameter (including example values). The tool description adds a brief restatement, but no substantial new information. 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 it returns party positions (Parolen) for Swiss popular votes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like democracy_get_vote_detail or democracy_bfs_get_vote_results. However, the use of German may reduce clarity for non-German-speaking agents, and the exact scope is implicit.

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 provides a use case ('Analyse von Parteilinien und Kampagnen-Finanzierung') but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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