democracy_list_vote_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, making the tool's safety clear. The description adds value by specifying the return format (JSON with dates and counts) and the use case for orientation.

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 with a clear purpose statement and separated Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses minimal but sufficient text.

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 annotations and output schema, the description adds necessary context for a simple list tool. It explains the return format and usage context. The only gap is the missing 'limit' parameter explanation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the 'params' argument as an optional time range filter (year_from, year_to). However, it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely, leaving it undocumented.

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 lists federal voting dates with the number of proposals per date, using specific German terms for Swiss referendums. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates', which likely serves a similar purpose with different data sources.

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 phrase 'Nützlich zur Orientierung vor einer Detailabfrage' implies usage context (orientation before detailed queries) but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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