Get Politician Votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by specifying what the output includes (votes, bill info, position, result). No contradictions; the description aligns with the read-only nature.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a use case and key prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter schema, the description adequately supplements with the return type (votes with bill info, position, result) and a prerequisite. For a simple read-only query tool, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear (slug example, limit/offset with defaults and max). The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating 'by slug', so baseline score of 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 tool retrieves 'voting records for a politician by slug' and specifies it returns 'congressional votes with bill info, position, and result'. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like get_politician_activity or get_recent_congressional_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?

The description provides a use case ('assessing alignment between votes and trading positions') and a prerequisite ('requires Bioguide ID resolution'). While it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools, the context of siblings like get_recent_congressional_votes gives some implicit guidance.

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