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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (per-party tallies, optional individual deputy vote) and ordering (newest first), but says nothing about pagination, the 50-item cap, permissions, or how to page past the limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys resource, ordering, payload, and the optional deputy dimension with no wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned and in what order. The main omissions are pagination/limit semantics, which the schema only partially covers via min/max/default.

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 67%; query and deputy are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them ('optionally how one deputy voted'). The limit parameter has no schema description and is not addressed in the description, so the gap is not compensated.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Chamber of Deputies plenary votes') and describes the payload ('yes/no/abstain tallies per party'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_deputies or search_legislation, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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: the phrase 'optionally how one deputy voted' hints that the deputy filter is an add-on, and 'newest first' hints at recency-oriented retrieval. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_legislation or get_deputies, and no exclusions.

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