congress_house_votes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses two data sources (Congress.gov API for recent, clerk.house.gov for older), covers 1990-present, and includes fallback behavior. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention pagination or rate limits.

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 concise (two main sentences plus cross-references) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The cross-references are comprehensive but not verbose. Every sentence adds value, though the list of cross-references could be slightly trimmed.

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's complexity (5 parameters, multiple sources, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: data sources, coverage, parameter behavior, and related tools. It doesn't detail the return format or pagination, but for a read-only vote tool, this is sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds the context that the year parameter overrides congress+session and that vote_number can be omitted to list recent votes, which slightly enhances meaning, but the schema already covers the basics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets House roll call votes with party breakdown, and distinguishes it from congress_senate_votes. It specifies the source and coverage, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance: when to use the year parameter, cross-references to related tools for deeper analysis, and explicitly states to use congress_senate_votes for Senate votes. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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