Get Division Detail

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral detail: 'Voter lists are truncated to 100 per side to fit response limits; total voter counts are always accurate regardless of truncation.' This informs the agent of important limitations and guarantees.

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 purposeful. The first sentence front-loads the usage condition, the second explains a key behavioral trait, and the third gives chaining options. No wasted words.

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 description covers when to use, key behavioral details (truncation), and sourcing guidance. With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, no further information is needed 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 explicitly states 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a division_id + house and want the full member-by-member voting record.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes from sibling tools like votes_search_divisions by specifying the context of having the ID.

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 when-to-use guidance with the imperative directive. It also indicates where to obtain the division_id (from votes_search_divisions or parliament_get_debate_divisions), effectively telling the agent when not to use this tool (when they don't have an ID).

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