democracy_polis_get_votation_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by stating the need for SRGSSR authentication keys and describing the return format (JSON with cantonal and municipal data). No contradiction with annotations; the description supplements them.

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: three sentences for purpose, example, auth requirement, then a bulleted param list and return type. No redundant text. The most important information (what it does, example, key dependency) is front-loaded. Every element earns its place.

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 has an output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return type (JSON) without duplicating schema details. It covers purpose, parameters, authentication, and usage context. The sibling list shows differentiation. For a read-only retrieval tool, the description is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 explicitly enumerates all three parameters (votation_id, lang, include_municipalities) with brief explanations, complementing the input schema which also has descriptions. It clarifies that votation_id comes from democracy_polis_list_votations and that include_municipalities increases response size. Although the schema does its job, the description adds context and a use case.

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 on a popular vote, with optional municipal results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like democracy_polis_list_votations by requiring a specific votation_id and providing deep details. The verb 'Gibt...zurück' and the resource 'Polis-Daten zu einer Volksabstimmung' are specific and unambiguous.

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 example use case ('Wie hat die Stadt Zürich bei der AHV-Reform abgestimmt?') and indicates the tool is used after obtaining a votation_id from democracy_polis_list_votations. It mentions prerequisites (authentication keys) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. Overall usage context is clear.

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