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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response content (party line comparison and deviation marking) and that results can be filtered, but says nothing about default result count, pagination, or required permissions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 core capability and filters are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by an English restatement that is redundant for a bilingual audience but harmless. No filler beyond the translation.

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 7-parameter tool with no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers intent and filters but omits defaults and the shape of the result set (e.g., whether a vote list is returned per Riksdag vote), which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps its filters to parameters ("ämnesord" to fraga, "period" to fran/till, "bara avvikelserna" to bara_avvikelser) but adds no syntax or format detail, and never clarifies the relationship between namn and person_id.

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 – how a named MP voted – and adds what is returned (party line alongside, deviation markers), which clearly separates it from votering or senaste_voteringar, which cover votes rather than a member's record. It never explicitly names a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Kan begränsas till ett ämnesord, en period eller bara avvikelserna" implies how to narrow the query, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over partiets_linje or votering, and no prerequisites (e.g., must supply namn or person_id).

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