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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait beyond the annotations: voter lists are truncated to 100 per side but total voter counts remain accurate. This is critical context for interpreting results and goes beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.) already convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear directive. It uses only three sentences, each earning its place: the usage trigger, the truncation caveat, and the chaining context. No wasted words or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the rich annotations, complete schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary contextual needs. It explains truncation behavior, emphasizes accuracy of counts, and provides chaining sources, making it fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 schema already documents both parameters (division_id source and house enum). The description adds little new semantic meaning; it merely reaffirms the inputs and points to chaining sources, which the schema already mentions for division_id. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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: retrieving the full member-by-member voting record for a given division. It specifies the required inputs (division_id + house) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like law_votes_search_divisions and law_parliament_get_debate_divisions by focusing on the detail retrieval rather than search or cross-resolution.

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 begins with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a division_id + house' and provides clear chaining guidance from related tools (votes_search_divisions or parliament_get_debate_divisions). This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and where to obtain the necessary IDs, which is exemplary usage guidance.

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