Get Politician Votes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds value by noting 'Requires Bioguide ID resolution,' a behavioral prerequisite not captured in structured fields. 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second adds context and prerequisite. No redundancy, front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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?

With output schema existing, description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, use case, prerequisite, and parameter hinting (slug). Fully sufficient for agent decision-making.

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% so parameters are already documented. Description only adds 'by slug' for the required parameter, which is already clear from schema. No additional meaning for limit/offset beyond 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 retrieves voting records for a politician by slug, specifying the returned data includes congressional votes, bill info, position, and result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_politician_detail or get_politician_recent_trades.

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 use case: assessing alignment between votes and trading positions. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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