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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lowered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by enumerating what the returned record contains — vote categories (for/against/absent/on leave), attendance, and 'recent' bills/votes — which matters since no output schema exists. It loses a point for the undefined 'recent' time window.

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?

One front-loaded sentence identifies the resource first, then lists contents via a tight colon-delimited enumeration. Every listed item corresponds to data the agent will receive, so nothing is 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?

With no output schema and no parameter docs, the description correctly compensates by describing the record's contents. For a simple read-only, single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient; only input-format and disambiguation guidance 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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies the single 'name' parameter identifies the deputy and that the name is Guatemalan, but gives no format guidance (full name vs. partial, accent handling, disambiguation for duplicate names). Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 names a precise resource — a single Guatemalan deputy's legislative record — and enumerates its contents (bloc, sponsored bills, pass counts, vote breakdowns, attendance, recent activity). This is far more specific than a sibling like party_profile or search_bills. It stops short of a 5 because there is no explicit verb ('retrieve'/'get') and no direct sibling routing statement.

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?

Intended use is clearly implied: call it when you want one legislator's full record. However, there is no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as party_profile, congress_votes, or search_bills, and no statement of prerequisites or failure conditions. Implied usage only.

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