democracy_polis_list_elections

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON string with election results or a registration hint if authentication is missing, which provides useful context beyond the 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 concise, with two paragraphs: first stating the purpose and source, second listing parameters and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action, though slightly verbose in listing args.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers source, auth, parameters, and return type. However, it omits guidance on when to use this over related sibling tools.

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 the description explains the parameters: year_from/year_to as time filters, lang as output language, limit as max results. This adds meaning beyond the schema's defaults and constraints.

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 retrieves historical elections (National/Ständerat, Regierungsrat) from Polis, specifying the source and time range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like democracy_polis_list_votations by focusing on elections rather than votations.

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 mentions required API keys (SRGSSR_CONSUMER_KEY/SECRET) and that Polis contains data since 1900, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like democracy_bfs_list_vote_dates. No exclusion criteria are given.

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