get_voting_record

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool 'shows how they voted,' implying a read operation, and does not contradict any annotations. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 structured with an Args list, making it easy to scan. It is relatively concise but includes both a summary sentence and detailed parameter info, which is acceptable. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the primary use case and explains all parameters. It is complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it omits error conditions or prerequisites.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: mp_name_or_id, division_id, and limit, including their purposes and defaults. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Get voting record for an MP,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_mp' or 'get_questions_by_mp' which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage when wanting to see an MP's voting record, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hansard' or 'get_questions_by_mp.' No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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