list_votes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: rows carry tally but no members, block votes name no bill, most voice votes are absent, classification 'Attendance' marks a quorum call, limit is capped at 200, and paging is via offset. These are exactly the coverage gaps, edge cases, and limits an agent needs before calling. Only auth/permission behavior is undisclosed.

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 is front-loaded in sentence one and every following sentence adds a constraint, edge case, or routing hint rather than restating. It is dense with backtick-formatted field names and packs a lot into a short block, which costs a little readability but not correctness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: rows carry the tally and no members, with gaps for block and voice votes flagged. Combined with the parameter coverage, the only residual hole is the meaning of session_code. That is a single, contained gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: dates are YYYY-MM-DD and inclusive, end_date defaults to start_date yielding a single day, chamber is the voting chamber (so a row may name a bill from the other chamber), limit is capped at 200, and offset pages. Only session_code is left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with its scope: 'Every vote a chamber took in a date range: floor, committee, and subcommittee.' That scope statement alone separates it from siblings like get_bill_votes or get_member_votes, which are bill- or member-scoped rather than chamber-scoped. An agent can place this tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives real usage context ('Keep the range short, since a chamber takes about 50 votes on a session day') and names an explicit alternative with its trigger: pass a row's bill_number and vote_id to get_roll_call for member-level data. It stops short of when-not guidance against other vote-adjacent siblings such as get_bill_votes or get_bill_vote_tallies.

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