get_bill_votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does: it discloses the scope (floor, committee, subcommittee), ordering (chronological), request cost (one per vote), and the meaning of the is_roll_call flag including the edge cases of voice votes and block votes that dispose of bills_in_vote bills at once. It omits auth/pagination behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then the flag semantics, then the routing/cost guidance. It is dense and slightly long, but each sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, flag semantics and cost well enough to invoke the tool correctly. The remaining gap is the unexplained required inputs (session_code especially), which leaves the agent guessing at argument values.

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?

Both required parameters (bill_number, session_code) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains neither their format nor their semantics. The only field-level explanation (vote_id, bills_in_vote, is_roll_call) concerns data fields and a different tool's parameter, not this tool's inputs, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: every recorded vote on a bill, both chambers, chronological order. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the closely related tools (get_roll_call, get_bill_vote_tallies) and the different data each returns.

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?

Explicit routing: pass a vote_id to get_roll_call for member-by-member records, and use get_bill_vote_tallies when the is_roll_call/bills_in_vote flags are not needed (two requests instead of one per vote). That is a concrete when-to-use-which-tool statement with a cost tradeoff.

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