election_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable beyond these by stating the operation is public and requires 'no account or token needed', plus characterizes the data as 'provisional', which helps set expectations about the results.

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?

A single well-structured sentence front-loads the exact data being read and then adds the auth context. Every word carries useful information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main inputs, scope, and authentication requirements. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the response structure would be helpful, but naming the specific indicators to be read gives a reasonable understanding of what will be returned.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only provides 'debate_id' as an untyped string. The description compensates by explaining that the tool works 'for one or all open debates', which clarifies that an optional debate_id selects a single debate and omission implies all. It does not detail the debate_id format, but the core semantic is covered.

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 states a specific verb, 'Read', and a precise set of resources: 'provisional genesis date floor, qualified-agent threshold and transparent diversity indicators' for debates. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_debates, which would focus on listing debates rather than readiness metrics.

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?

It clearly indicates the operation covers 'one or all open debates' and notes that it is public and requires no account or token, giving the agent useful context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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