congress_bill_votes

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

The description discloses that the tool 'scans the bill's action timeline for recorded vote references' and fetches votes with 'member-level results and party tallies.' This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It correctly implies a read-only operation with no destructive effects, consistent with the annotation.

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 main purpose, then delves into scanning details and related tools. It is moderately concise, with no extraneous fluff. The bullet-like list of related tools could be more compact, but overall it's well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input, process (scanning bill timeline), and output (House/Senate votes with party breakdowns). It also situates the tool within a broader investigation workflow by listing related tools. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with minimal but clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Congress number', 'Bill type' with enum). The description adds context about how params identify the bill but does not elaborate on each parameter's syntax or constraints. Since the schema already covers the parameters adequately, the description provides marginal added value.

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 finds 'ALL roll-call votes on a specific bill and fetch the party-line breakdowns.' It specifies the exact action (find and fetch) and the resource (bill votes). It also distinguishes itself as the key tool for 'follow the money' investigations, setting it apart from sibling tools like congress_house_votes or congress_senate_votes by emphasizing its comprehensive coverage of both chambers.

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 clear usage context: it is the 'critical bridge between legislation and accountability' and outlines a chain of investigation (bill → votes → who voted → who funded). It implies when to use this tool (for bill vote analysis) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is strong but lacks exclusion criteria.

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