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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavior on top: no-argument default to the latest sitting day, the 92-day lookback when only a query is given, agenda-item grouping with only the deciding vote shown, and a hard cap of 40 items. These are non-obvious constraints an agent would otherwise discover only empirically.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and examples, then defaults, then return shape and the 40-item limit—every sentence carries information. It is dense but slightly packed, with the grouping/return details and the item cap sharing a single long sentence.

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, but the description compensates by describing the return structure (agenda items, deciding vote with result and totals, ids of other votes) and the 40-item ceiling. Combined with the annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot—that a query alone restricts to the last 92 days, and that results are aggregated per agenda item. It stops short of clarifying what happens when day and from/to are both supplied, or how deterministically multiple filters combine.

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 (list plenary votes of the European Parliament) with the exact scope dimensions: sitting day, week, date range, or subject. It also distinguishes itself from get_vote by explaining that it returns agenda items with their deciding vote plus ids of other votes for retrieval via get_vote.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers with natural-language example utterances ("what did Parliament vote today", "votes on Ukraine in October") and defines the default behavior when no arguments are supplied. It also routes to the sibling tool by noting the returned ids are meant for get_vote.

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