congress_senate_votes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a non-destructive read operation. It adds context about the returned data (party breakdown, types of votes) beyond the annotation, with no contradictions.

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?

Four sentences front-loaded with core purpose, followed by coverage and cross-references. No wasted words, efficient and scannable.

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?

Covers purpose, source, coverage, and related tools. Without an output schema, it implies the result structure (roll call votes by party), but does not specify exact fields or format. Sufficient for an agent to decide usage.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions. The tool-level description adds minimal extra value, only noting default limit and vote_number omission behavior.

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 Senate roll call vote results from a specific source (senate.gov XML), covering a defined range (101st Congress to present). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool congress_house_votes.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For House votes, use congress_house_votes' and lists cross-references for complementary analyses (FEC, lobbying, member bills). Also notes the coverage window.

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