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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape (totals, result by bloc, individual deputy votes) that no output schema provides. It does not mention pagination, default limits, or result caps (limit max 50).

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, query facets second, zero filler. The parenthetical examples ('approving a bill in third reading, electing an official, a resolution…') clarify the scope of a 'question put to a vote' rather than padding.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only search tool, the description covers what is searched and what comes back, which is the core need. Remaining gaps are limit/pagination behavior and default date handling, both minor against annotation coverage of safety semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it maps q, initiative ('bill number'), decree, deputy, vote, and from/to ('dates') to searchable fields, and defines the four vote values (favor, contra, ausente, licencia). Only 'limit' is left unexplained, and no date format or matching semantics are given.

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 ('Plenary votes in Guatemala's Congress') and enumerates what a record contains: totals, bloc results, and per-deputy votes. It also names the domain facets (bill, decree, deputy, vote) that separate it from siblings like search_bills or deputy_record.

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: 'Find by words in the question, bill number, decree, deputy, vote and dates' tells the agent how to query, not when to choose this tool over search_bills or deputy_record. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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