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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the 2026-forward data range, the meaning of vote position codes, and sponsor types, and that votes come newest first. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple GET but leaves some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The main action and key parameter come first, then optional behavior, then how to find the ID. Perfectly front-loaded and compact.

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 single-resource fetch with no output schema, it explains the primary behavior, optional sub-resources, ordering, and data scope. It lacks explicit return field details, but that's a minor omission given the simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds interpretive value: it explains what 'votes' and 'bills' include and the meaning of their enum values, plus the int64 warning for people_id. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a legislator's profile by people_id, names the endpoint, and describes optional merging of votes and bills. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_legislators and get_bill.

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?

Tells the agent how to find a people_id (via list_legislators or bill sponsors) and when to use the optional includes. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the single-resource fetch is self-evident.

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