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

Beyond the readOnly annotations, the description discloses the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/votes/{roll_call_id}), the returned fields, the semantics of vote_id values (1=Yea, 2=Nay, 3=Not Voting, 4=Absent), and the effect of include:['details']. This adds substantial behavioral context not provided by the annotations alone.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph with no filler, and the core fetch operation is front-loaded. The embedding of endpoint, enum legend, and ID sourcing makes it slightly packed, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains both the summary return fields and the detailed member-vote return shape. It also covers the required ID source and the optional include behavior, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly without further context.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains that include:['details'] pulls individual member positions and decodes the vote_id enum values, which are not in the schema. The max_items default and cap are already in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a roll call by roll_call_id') and states exactly what is returned: motion, chamber, date and tallies. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_bill as the source of IDs and describing the include:['details'] variant as the tool for individual member votes.

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 explicitly says when to use the details mode ('this is the tool for "how did each legislator vote on this"') and how to obtain the required ID ('Get a roll_call_id from get_bill with include:['votes']'). The alternative source path is named, leaving little inference for an agent.

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