democracy_get_vote_detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, reducing burden. The description adds context about the returned JSON and error handling, and lists included fields, aligning 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 a use-case block, list of included items, and Args/Returns sections. It is informative but could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy with schema.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input, use case, and output sufficiently. It mentions error messages and links to additional resources.

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 only parameter (params) is described with details about its field (vote_number) and source in the description. The schema also provides a description, so the main description adds clarity about the input's origin.

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 full details of a federal popular vote, listing specific elements. It distinguishes itself from siblings through the emphasis on 'complete details', but does not explicitly name differences.

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 hint ('Vertiefung zu einer konkreten Vorlage') implying when to use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. It references democracy_search_votes for input, providing context.

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