congress_house_votes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral context: primary source (Congress.gov API), fallback (clerk.house.gov XML), coverage period (1990–present), and that results include member-level party breakdown. It doesn't mention pagination or output format, but those are minor given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: (1) purpose and result granularity, (2) data source and coverage, (3) cross-references and alternative routing. No redundancy, and it front-loads the core purpose. The cross-reference list is long but relevant and organized.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential context: data source/fallback, coverage years, how to request historical data (year param), and how to connect to sibling tools. It does not explicitly state that omitting all params returns a list of recent votes, but that's inferable from the limit parameter and the phrase 'roll call vote results.' Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (each of the 5 parameters has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but useful hint: 'Use year param for historical votes.' This helps an agent decide when to override the default current congress/session behavior, slightly enhancing the schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('House of Representatives roll call vote results') with a distinguishing detail ('member-level party breakdown'). It differentiates from congress_senate_votes by explicitly directing Senate queries there, so an agent can select correctly without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use and alternatives: says to use congress_senate_votes for Senate votes, recommends the year parameter for historical votes, and lists cross-referencing tools (FEC, lobbying_search, FRED) for enriched analysis. This is above-and-beyond guidance.

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