democracy_polis_list_elections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds that authentication is required and returns JSON with election list or registration hint. It does not contradict 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 structured with a title, use case tag, authentication note, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is not overly long, but the German language and special characters may slightly reduce readability for English agents.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, authentication, and return type. It lacks explicit examples or exclusions, but for a list-like tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 compensates by listing parameters (year_from, year_to, lang, limit) and their basic purpose. However, it does not provide detailed guidance such as format or example values beyond what the schema provides.

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 for analysis since 1900. The use case tag explicitly mentions 'Wahlanalysen', making the purpose distinct from sibling tools that deal with votations or popular votes.

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 clear context: it requires API keys (SRGSSR_CONSUMER_KEY and SECRET). It also gives a use case indicator. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., democracy_polis_list_votations) to guide when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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