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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: merge ordering ('newest first'), the numeric position codes (1=Yea, 2=Nay, 3=Not Voting, 4=Absent), and sponsor_type_id values. Those code decodings materially change how an agent interprets the response.

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 primary action and identifier are front-loaded in the first clause, with the optional merges and their semantics following. Every parenthetical earns its place by decoding data the agent will otherwise misread.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what the merged sub-resources contain and how to read their numeric codes, plus the corpus boundary. Combined with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining what the 'include' values actually pull in and that limit applies per included sub-resource. The parenthetical code tables describe returned data rather than parameters, so it doesn't fully saturate parameter meaning.

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 ('Fetch a legislator's profile by people_id'), includes the underlying endpoint, and explicitly enumerates the two optional sub-resource merges. An agent can distinguish this from list_legislators or get_legislator_scorecard without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent on how to obtain the required key ('Find a people_id with list_legislators or from a bill's sponsors') and states the corpus constraint (2026-forward only). It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., bulk retrieval vs. list_legislators), which keeps it just below the top.

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