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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys substantive traits: sort order (most recent to oldest), filterability by chamber and theme, and exclusion of amendment votes. It does not describe pagination, response format, or error conditions, but for a read-only list operation these are less critical.

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 two compact sentences. The first front-loads the main purpose, scope, and ordering; the second adds a valuable exclusion with no 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?

For a read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, filtering, and exclusions. It could mention that lire_scrutin is the way to retrieve full details of a specific vote, but that is not essential to call this tool correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that filtering by chamber and theme is possible, which reinforces but does not extend the schema.

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 ('Liste') and resource ('sccrutins majeurs les plus réccents'), defines what qualifies as major (vote sur un texte, motion de censure, déclaration), specifies ordering, and clearly excludes amendments, making it distinct from amendment-level listing tools. Though it does not name the sibling lire_scrutin, the listing vs. reading contrast is inherent.

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 implies use when recent major votes are needed and explicitly notes that amendments are excluded, which serves as a when-not signal. However, it does not name or contrast the sibling lire_scrutin, nor state when that alternative should be used instead.

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