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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates scope (across committees), filtering dimensions, and that hearings are scheduled, but does not mention ordering, pagination, default limits, or response shape. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, no filler. The core action and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by use cases and sibling routing. 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?

For a simple list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers scope, filters, endpoint, use cases, and alternatives. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether past hearings are included, but nothing critical is missing 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds semantic labels like 'jurisdiction' and 'start date' that map to state and since, but does not add meaningfully beyond 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 lists 'scheduled committee hearings across committees' and gives the endpoint. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it is not for one specific committee or bill, which are handled by get_committee and get_bill.

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?

It provides concrete use cases: answering 'what is being heard this week' and tracking when a committee next meets. It also gives explicit alternatives with parameters for committee-specific and bill-specific hearing lookups, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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