congress_bill_votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral detail by explaining it scans the bill's action timeline and fetches each vote with member-level results and party tallies. It also mentions the return content. This is valuable beyond annotations, though it does not address potential limitations like pagination or missing vote scenarios.

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 moderately long but well-structured with bullet points and a workflow diagram. It front-loads the core action and provides the investigative chain efficiently. While a few sentences could be trimmed, it is not overly verbose and earns its length by clearly communicating the tool's role.

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 is composite and lacks an output schema, but the description explains what it returns: 'all House and Senate roll-call votes associated with the bill, with full party breakdowns.' It also connects to related tools (FEC, lobbying) for further investigation. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but given its complexity and the provided annotations, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with basic descriptions ('Congress number', 'Bill type', 'Bill number') and an enum for bill_type. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra semantic 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 specific action ('Find ALL roll-call votes on a specific bill and fetch the party-line breakdowns') and the resource (a bill). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the key tool for 'follow the money' investigations and outlining the workflow (Bill → Votes → Who funded them). The purpose is unmistakable and distinct.

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 a clear usage context by showing the investigative workflow chain (Bill → Votes → FEC funding → lobbying). It implies when to use this tool (when you have a bill and need its votes) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like congress_house_votes or congress_senate_votes. It gives context but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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