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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's job is additive — and it adds the endpoint path and the fact that results are id values intended for a follow-up call. It does not mention result counts, pagination, or ordering, which keeps it below the top score.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first gives capability and filters, the second gives the return contract and downstream use. It is front-loaded with the operation and nothing is repeated.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what is returned (committee_id values). Minor gaps remain — no mention of default result size or whether results are paginated — but the schema's limit parameter covers most of that.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the three filter dimensions (name search, chamber, jurisdiction) at a high level but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List legislative committees') plus the underlying endpoint, and explicitly says what it returns ('committee_id values'). It also differentiates from the sibling get_committee by framing this tool as the lookup that feeds it.

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?

Gives clear usage context through the filter dimensions and the workflow hint that its output is the input to get_committee. It stops short of an explicit exclusion rule (e.g. 'use get_committee when you already have an id'), but the implied routing is easy to infer.

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