get_member_votes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: default page_size=300 intended to fetch all ~300 members, pagination explanation (has_more), and response field names. It also clarifies that if has_more=False and count<300, all votes are retrieved.

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-organized with sections, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence is purposeful and adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key workflow.

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 description is thorough given the tool's complexity (7 params, pagination, multiple filters) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown). It covers parameter usage, workflow integration, return fields, and pagination. Slightly verbose but complete.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), the tool description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples, default values, valid values, and notes on field formats. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves individual member voting records for a specific bill (one row per member). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_vote_results and get_party_cohesion by specifying its role as step 2 in a per-member vote analysis workflow.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance via a 3-step workflow, warns about the common BILL_ID vs BILL_NO mistake, and explains when to use each filter (e.g., party for discipline analysis). This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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