get_my_votes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and 'search for posts' adds search behavior. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, response structure, or limitations. The schema covers pagination defaults, but the description adds little beyond the name's implication.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the distinct search capability, making every word earn 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a useful summary but omits mention of optional filters like vote_type, date ranges, and pagination. It is adequate for initial tool selection but not fully complete for understanding all capabilities and expected output.

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's mention of 'content text' aligns with the 'search' parameter, and 'upvoted or downvoted' maps to 'vote_type', but it adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('your voting history on Resonate posts'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_post_performance or search_posts. The additional search capability is also mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving one's own votes and searching by content text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No references to sibling tools or alternative approaches are given.

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