get_congress_member_votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic retrieval purpose. It does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 short and efficient: a one-line purpose followed by a concise bullet-like list of arguments and return value. No redundant sentences, and the structure is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 parameter descriptions are adequate, but the return value is only vaguely described as 'voting statistics and recent votes' without an output schema. Missing details about error handling, pagination, or data source limitations reduce completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: provides examples for member_name ('Sanders', 'Warren'), specifies allowed values for chamber ('senate' or 'house'), and explains the default and meaning of congress (118 = current). This goes beyond the bare schema types.

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 the tool retrieves voting behavior of a congress member via ProPublica. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('voting behavior'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on campaign finance and donations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The sibling tools are about finance, but the description does not explicitly recommend this tool for voting records or exclude other contexts.

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