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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the possible vote outcomes and discloses a licensing obligation (CC BY 4.0) requiring attribution and source linking, plus the returned «url». This is useful operational context a caller would otherwise not know.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what is returned, then per-response fields and the attribution rule. Two dense sentences with little waste, though the attribution clause runs on.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (vote, group at the time, majority divergence, url, atribucion), which is exactly what an agent needs to use the result. It stops short of stating error/missing-record behavior, a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are documented at 100% coverage in the schema (name/id/ficha URL for the deputy and votación), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about accepted identifier formats or matching behavior, meriting the baseline score.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (a deputy's vote in a specific votación) and enumerates the answer's shape (Sí, No, Abstención, No votó, group, majority divergence). It is clearly a fine-grained lookup, distinct from session-level siblings like ver_votacion, but it never names the sibling it must not be confused with.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'given a deputy and a votación, return their vote'. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over ver_votacion (whole-session results) or ver_diputado (profile), and no prerequisites for the two required inputs.

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