congress_bill_votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main job is to add behavioral context. It explains the internal process (scans action timeline, fetches each vote) and output (member-level results, party tallies). No contradictions. It doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with this context, it's solid.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and workflow bullets, but it repeats the same output statement ('party-line breakdowns' and 'full party breakdowns' in both opening and closing). This redundancy costs a point against the high standard of concise tool descriptions.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what is returned (member-level results and party tallies for House and Senate). The three parameters are simple, and the tool's behavior is clearly described. It could mention empty results or timeout behavior, but for a read-only composite tool, it covers essential context.

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 100%, so the parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond 'specific bill'. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find ALL roll-call votes on a specific bill and fetch the party-line breakdowns.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like congress_house_votes and congress_senate_votes by emphasizing 'ALL roll-call votes' for a bill across both chambers, positioning it as the composite 'Bill → Votes' bridge.

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 provides workflow context ('Bill → Votes (this tool) → ...'), and explains it scans the bill's action timeline, implying when this tool is appropriate for legislative accountability research. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like congress_house_votes or congress_senate_votes, but the 'ALL' and 'composite' framing signals it as the comprehensive choice. Slight gap in naming alternative conditions.

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