Query Elected Representatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses per-country auth requirements (GOOGLE_CIVIC_API_KEY, TWFY_API_KEY, none for CA), the source backends, and the auto-detection behavior. It omits error behavior, rate limits, and coverage limitations, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a compact per-country block; every line (provider, official level covered, key requirement) carries information an agent needs before calling. No filler sentences.

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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essentials: sources, auth, geographic scope, and the level of officials returned per country. It does not describe the response shape or attribution requirements, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the auto-detection and ambiguous-city rule. The description restates the country override rather than adding format or resolution detail beyond the structured fields, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verb and resource ('look up elected officials') and scopes it to three countries with named upstream providers. It is immediately distinguishable from demographic, crime, or transit siblings, which query statistics rather than officeholders.

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?

Gives clear context for use: which backend serves each country, which require API keys, and that country is auto-detected or can be overridden. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is context-rich but not routing-complete.

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