get_roll_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses grouping under yea/nay/abstain/not_voting, the special meaning of statements, that the recorded response still stands, and that voice/block votes are omitted. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds dense, useful detail: grouping, statement semantics, exclusions, and vote_id narrowing. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately defines the return structure: one entry per vote, grouped by stance, with party and district, and with statements explained. The main gap is the lack of semantic explanation for the required bill_number and session_code parameters, but the overall behavior is well covered.

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 compensate. It only clarifies vote_id (“narrows the result to one vote”), while the required bill_number and session_code are left entirely to their schema titles with no additional meaning, format, or relationship explained.

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 opening sentence clearly identifies the resource and purpose: “Who voted which way on a bill, with party and district, one entry per vote.” It also distinguishes this tool from get_bill_votes by explicitly saying voice votes and block votes are excluded.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: it covers only recorded member votes, not voice or block votes, and names get_bill_votes as the sibling that includes those. It also explains that vote_id narrows the result to one vote, giving a concrete usage condition.

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