get_glosowanie_razem

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

Adds value beyond annotations by detailing output (count and percentage of same votes). Annotations already indicate read-only and open world behavior, and description does not contradict them.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives example usage. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite missing output schema, description explains return values comprehensively. Parameter constraints are covered. No gaps for a 2-param tool with read-only annotations.

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?

Input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds extra context: IDs from sejm_mp with range 1..460, surpassing schema details.

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?

Description clearly states it computes voting agreement between two MPs, using specific verbs and examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_glosowanie and search_glosowania.

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?

Explicitly mentions it's great for 'how often does MP X vote like MP Y' type questions, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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