congress_senate_votes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: data source (senate.gov XML), coverage (101st Congress to present), and output content (party breakdown). No contradictions with annotations.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, and the cross-reference list is dense but relevant. Slightly long due to the list, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides source, coverage, content, and usage guidance. It doesn't describe return format, but that's not critical for a roll call vote query tool with clear semantics.

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% (all 4 params have descriptions), so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It doesn't, but the schema fully handles this baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get Senate roll call vote results from senate.gov XML'), states the scope (how senators voted by party on legislation, nominations, procedural motions), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'For House votes, use congress_house_votes.'

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the House counterpart: 'For House votes, use congress_house_votes.' It also lists complementary cross-reference tools (FEC, lobbying_search, congress_member_bills) with context on what each adds.

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