Resultados electorales (Corte Electoral)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: the data provenance (per-mesa Corte Electoral data), the inclusion of votos observados scrutinized in special tables without locality, and the percentage base (votos emitidos). This last point materially affects interpretation of the numbers.

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?

Four sentences, all content-bearing, with the core purpose front-loaded and the methodological caveats following. Slightly dense prose but no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed, and the description still usefully covers provenance and the votos observados nuance. The remaining gap is the eleccion/departamento relationship, which an agent must guess before calling.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: 'del país o de un departamento' explains what the departamento parameter controls, and the three election types named in the text roughly map to the eleccion enum. However, it never specifies the expected format for departamento (name vs. code vs. canonical spelling) or whether it interacts with the eleccion values.

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?

States a concrete resource (Uruguayan election results) and enumerates exactly what it returns: habilitados, emitidos, participación, votes by party and by option. It also scopes the geography (whole country or a single departamento). No sibling tool covers elections, so explicit differentiation isn't required, but it doesn't name a complementary or alternative tool either.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('resultados de una elección uruguaya') and by the eleccion enum in the schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite. Crucially, it never says whether the departamento filter is valid for all three elections (e.g. nacionales-2024) or only departamentales-2025, leaving a real selection question to inference.

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