democracy_polis_list_votations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that authentication is required and that the response includes a JSON list or a registration hint if unauthorized. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 a clear paragraph with bullet-like listing of parameters. It is not overly wordy but could be more concise; the return type and auth requirement are front-loaded appropriately.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema covers parameters well, the description adds necessary context about authentication and the specific value of the data source. It is sufficiently complete for a list operation.

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 input schema already has descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats these in a summarized format, adding no new information for the agent 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 the tool retrieves historical popular votes from the SRGSSR Polis system since 1900. It specifies the unique value (municipality-level data) and distinguishes itself from siblings like the detail and elections tools.

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 explains the tool's niche (historical analysis at municipality level) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling list tools or state when not to use it. It does mention the prerequisite API keys, which is helpful.

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