get_member_votes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses row semantics for block votes, the effect of exclude_block_votes, the distinction between total_matching and distinct_votes, omission of attendance roll calls, and LIS ordering, along with a hard limit cap.

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 information-dense and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before explaining nuances. Every sentence adds meaningful operational detail, including edge-case behavior and pagination, without redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: scope, row cardinality, block-vote behavior, counting semantics, exclusions, ordering, and pagination limits. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters itself. It does: member_id and session_code are implied by 'one member' and 'in a session', bill_number by 'votes on one bill', exclude_block_votes by its explicit effect, and limit/offset by pagination guidance and the 200 cap.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: it retrieves every vote one member cast in a session, or their votes on a single bill. This clearly distinguishes it from bill-centered sibling tools like get_bill_votes by making the member the primary axis.

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 clearly defines when to use the tool and what scope options exist, including filtering to one bill via the bill context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use X instead', but the member-vs-bill framing provides strong contextual guidance.

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