congress_senate_votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data source (senate.gov XML), coverage range (101st Congress to present), and the types of votes (legislation, nominations, procedural motions). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't describe output format or pagination (not critical for a read-only tool).

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, starting with the main purpose and then adding relevant cross-references. It is not overly verbose and the structure is logical. The cross-reference list is helpful but could be considered slightly dense; still, it earns its place by enhancing usability.

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 relatively simple, with all parameters documented and annotations covering safety. The description adds source and coverage context. It doesn't explain the return format, but for a roll call vote result, the output is straightforward. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, session, congress, vote_number) are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Senate roll call vote results' from a specific source (senate.gov XML). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly routing House votes to congress_house_votes, and it lists complementary cross-references. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly says 'For House votes, use congress_house_votes,' providing a direct alternative. It also lists cross-reference tools for deeper analysis (FEC, lobbying, member bills), giving context on when to use this tool in conjunction with others. This is clear usage guidance.

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