democracy_search_votes

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) align with the description's search-and-return behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact output fields (JSON with votes, pagination metadata) and input constraints, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, then filters list, then Args and Returns sections. It is not overly concise but each section serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 and detailed input schema, the description still adds value by summarizing the return format and listing all filterable fields. It covers search, filtering, pagination, and output, making it complete for a search tool without omissions.

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 includes an Args section that summarizes each parameter, but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter with types and examples. The description's parameter info is redundant yet clear; it doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action (search) and the resource (all Swiss federal votes since 1848 via Swissvotes database). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific vote details or BFS data, making the purpose 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 lists available filters (keyword, date range, legal form, result, policy domain) and mentions pagination parameters, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though siblings like democracy_get_vote_detail imply different use cases.

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