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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses the GET endpoint, the default payload (tallies), the effect of include:['details'], and the numeric vote_id mapping. It omits error behavior and auth requirements, but for a read-only fetch the main behavioral traits are clearly covered.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: basic payload, optional include behavior, and ID provenance. The information is front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant with the schema or the title.

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 3-parameter fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how to enrich the response, and how to obtain the required parameter. It omits edge cases like invalid IDs or response envelope details, but nothing an agent needs to choose or call the tool 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema. It explains what 'details' returns, defines the vote_id code meanings, and tells the agent where to get a valid roll_call_id. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and makes parameter usage more actionable.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a roll call by roll_call_id'), and directly names the endpoint. It also lists exactly what fields are returned and explicitly positions the tool as the one for 'how did each legislator vote on this', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_breakdown or 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?

The description provides a clear use case ('this is the tool for...') and tells the agent where to obtain the required roll_call_id (from get_bill with include:['votes']). It does not explicitly enumerate when to use alternative vote-related tools instead, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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