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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return field details (bill title, vote result, yes/no counts), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, authentication needs, or the bill_id filter that appears in the schema. This adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 a single concise sentence (23 words) that front-loads the main action and scope, followed by filters and return fields. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return shape, but it omits the bill_id filter from its filter list and does not mention default date ranges or result limits. Given the schema provides parameter details, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description's mention of filtering by state, topic, or date adds no new semantic meaning and actually omits the bill_id parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'state legislature votes' and scope 'across 26+ US states,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also lists filters and return fields, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like politics_bills_search and politics_bill that focus on bills rather than votes.

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 conveys a clear use case for searching state legislature votes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like politics_bills_search or exclude scenarios. The context is implied rather than directly stated, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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