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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them — ordering ("Most recent vote first"), provenance ("Reads directly from the Legislature's own bill-tracking service"), and auth ("Keyless"). It also discloses a meaningful coverage limit (voice and committee votes absent), which prevents false-negative interpretations.

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 core verb and resource, and every sentence carries information (scope, ordering, provenance, exclusions, auth). Slightly dense at four long clauses plus a fragment ("Keyless."), but nothing is redundant.

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, yet the description enumerates what comes back — chamber, motion, date, yea/nay/absent/excused counts, and named legislators per category — so an agent knows the response shape. Combined with the ordering and exclusion notes, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both `bill` and `biennium` are already documented with formats and examples; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ("Get the recorded FLOOR ROLL-CALL VOTES on a Washington State legislative bill") plus the fields returned, which distinguishes it from wa_bill_status and wa_bill_amendments without opening either schema. An agent can tell immediately this is the roll-call vote tool, not the status or amendment tool.

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 concrete trigger questions ("how did the House vote on HB 1002", "did SB 5016 pass the Senate") and an explicit exclusion — voice votes and committee-only votes are not recorded here — so the agent knows when this tool will return nothing useful. It does not name the sibling tools (wa_bill_status, wa_bill_amendments) as alternatives for the excluded cases, which keeps it just below a 5.

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