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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (outcomes plus ids) and that results are the most recent, but omits the result cap (n max 25), default ordering, and any pagination or permission behavior for what is presumably a read-only listing.

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 and single-purpose, but the Swedish and English sentences are a full restatement of the same content rather than complementary detail, effectively doubling the length without adding information.

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 does cover return content (votes with outcomes, ids usable by 'votering'), and it names the filter dimensions. It stops short of defining the result count/ordering, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 80%, so fran, till, fraga and utskott are already documented in the schema. The description duplicates that filtering story and re-uses the same committee-code examples already present in the schema, adding little new syntax. The 'n' limit parameter is undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the latest chamber votes, with outcomes, scopeable by keyword/committee/period. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'votering' by noting it yields the ids that tool consumes, and from 'kommande_i_kammaren' by covering past/current votes rather than upcoming ones.

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?

Clear context that this is the discovery/listing entry point and 'votering' is the detail fetcher ('Ger id:n som verktyget votering tar'). It does not spell out an explicit when-not-to-use or list all alternatives (hur_rostade, partiets_linje), but the primary routing decision is stated.

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