democracy_get_vote_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, ensuring the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds that the return is a JSON string with vote details or an error message, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description does not contradict 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 a clear intro, bullet list of included data, and explicit Args/Returns section. It is informative without being verbose, though the German text could be slightly trimmed for brevity.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool's input (one parameter with usage hint) and output (list of data fields, JSON format, error handling). No critical gaps are present, though it does not mention any rate limits or pagination (likely unnecessary for a single-detail lookup).

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 has 0% top-level parameter description coverage (the 'params' object lacks description), but the description compensates by explaining that params contains vote_number with an example format ('551.9' or '546') and links to democracy_search_votes, adding semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Gibt vollständige Details zu einer eidgenössischen Volksabstimmung zurück' (returns complete details of a federal referendum) and lists specific included fields (title, legal form, recommendations, results, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely return partial data.

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 specifies that vote_number comes from democracy_search_votes, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., democracy_bfs_get_vote_results or democracy_get_cantonal_results). Usage context is implied by the comprehensive detail but not directly stated.

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