gov.house-votes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and aggregation frequency ('daily'), but does not mention destructive mutations, rate limits, required permissions, or response structure. This is adequate but incomplete for a read-like 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 description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and filtering options. Every word serves a purpose without 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?

Given the moderate parameter count (8) and lack of output schema, the description provides key behavioral context (ordering, aggregation, filters) but omits the return format and pagination details. Completeness is moderate.

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 low (25%), but the description adds meaning for most parameters (year, congress, result, bill, date range via since/until). However, it does not explain 'limit' or 'offset'. This adds value beyond the schema but still leaves gaps.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('US House of Representatives roll-call votes') and the action (list, with filtering). It distinguishes from the sibling 'gov.senate-votes' by specifying 'House', and mentions ordering ('newest first').

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 lists available filters (year, congress, result, bill substring, date range) and notes the data source ('Locally aggregated daily from clerk.house.gov'). It implies when to use (House votes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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