democracy_polis_get_votation_detail

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds that it requires authentication (SRGSSR keys) and returns JSON with cantonal/optional municipal data, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 four sentences plus a structured use case tag and args list. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, auth, parameter overview. No fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers input, auth, and use case adequately. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or pagination, but not critical given the straightforward single-item retrieval.

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 description lists the three parameters from the input schema, but the schema itself already has detailed descriptions for each (e.g., votation_id source, lang enum, municipality inclusion effect). The description adds the auth requirement but does not significantly enrich the semantic meaning of the parameters beyond the schema; 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 the tool returns detailed Polis data for a popular vote, with optional municipal results. It specifies the resource (votation detail) and verb (get), and distinguishes from siblings like democracy_polis_list_votations (listing) and democracy_bfs_get_vote_results (BFS 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 provides a concrete use case (analyzing municipal results like Zurich's AHV vote) and prerequisites (votation_id from list_votations, SRGSSR keys). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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