gov.senate-votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data source (senate.gov), update frequency (daily aggregated), and ordering (newest first). It does not mention pagination or errors, but the behavior is clearly read-only and well-scoped.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists filters without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and filters but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, and what happens with no results. Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), more information would be beneficial.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It lists most parameters (congress, session, result, document, date range) and provides an example for 'document'. However, it omits 'limit' and 'offset', leaving some 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 states it retrieves US Senate roll-call votes ordered newest first, with specific filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gov.house-votes' by specifying 'Senate'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for Senate roll-call votes) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It implicitly guides usage through its specificity.

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