democracy_list_vote_dates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it returns JSON with dates and proposal counts, but no additional behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Nützlich zur Orientierung...' appears twice), but overall efficient with mixed German and technical formatting.

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 tool complexity (listing with filtering) and existence of output schema, description adequately explains return format (JSON with dates and counts). Lacks differentiation from sibling list tools but covers essentials.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'Optionaler Zeitraumfilter (year_from, year_to)' for two of three parameters but omits 'limit'. Partial coverage limits clarity.

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 'Listet alle eidgenössischen Abstimmungsdaten auf' (lists all federal voting dates), specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like democracy_get_vote_detail and democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates by focusing on date listing with proposal counts.

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> tag indicating 'Orientierung/Navigation vor einer Detailabfrage' (orientation/navigation before a detail query), providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage or mention alternatives like democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates.

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