get_person_votes

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description need only add behavioral context. It adds ordering ('newest first') and content scope ('what each vote was about'), which is useful. It does not mention pagination or result limits, though top/skip parameters hint at them.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is delivered succinctly in the second sentence.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with pagination and date filters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and ordering but leaves pagination behavior, result shape, and date-filter usage largely implicit. The schema helps for some parameters, making this minimally adequate but not 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 schema provides descriptions for person_id, since, and until, but top and skip have only titles, defaults, and ranges. The description adds no direct parameter explanations, though 'newest first' gives some ordering context for pagination. Overall it does not significantly supplement the schema.

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's function: showing how one MK voted in the plenum, newest first, with the subject of each vote. It distinguishes itself from get_vote by pointing out that get_vote shows how everyone else voted for a specific VoteID.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use get_vote instead ('Pass a VoteID to get_vote to see how everyone else voted'), giving both the alternative and the condition that selects it. The intended use for this tool is also clear from the first sentence.

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