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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations do not: cursor-based pagination ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'), the returned field semantics including the '-' sentinel for members without a party, and a mandatory attribution requirement ('Source: Sveriges riksdag').

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 purpose, followed by pagination guidance, field semantics, and attribution in a compact block. No filler sentences, though the field-list run-on and the 'varchar: -' formatting are slightly hard to parse.

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, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing all five fields, plus covering pagination and attribution. Only the filter parameters lack descriptive treatment, which is minor for a no-required-params query tool.

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 limit/cursor/riksmote/riksmote_in are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces pagination behavior ('pass next_cursor') but never explains the riksmote or riksmote_in filters, so it adds little beyond 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 precisely what the tool returns: votes and absence aggregates per party, with the exact field list. It does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling party_agreement, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (notably party_agreement), nor exclusions, prerequisites, or filter guidance. Usage context is only implied by the field list and the riksmote filter parameters.

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