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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal the core behavioral output (voted vs missed counts per legislator) and the GET nature of the request, but it does not describe response structure, pagination behavior, or exactly how 'missed' is defined.

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 description is two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key behavior, includes the endpoint, and adds a practical usage note, with every sentence earning its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, when to use it, and where to get the session_id. It stops short of describing the exact response fields and edge cases, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow guidance about obtaining session_id from list_sessions, which is useful, but it does not clarify the effect of the limit parameter on the returned legislator rows beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool's function: counting how many roll calls each legislator voted in versus missed during one session, and includes the endpoint. It is more specific than a generic 'get session data' phrasing, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_session_breakdown or get_session_dashboard.

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 explicitly says 'Use for attendance questions,' giving a clear when-to-use signal. It also tells the agent where to obtain the required session_id (from list_sessions), but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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