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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format (flat JSON fields), notes that amounts are ranges and disclosure lags by up to 45 days, and clarifies House-only scope. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: the first defines the data and output, the second gives usage, and the third adds critical caveats. Key information is front-loaded (what it returns) and the entire text is compact and purposeful. 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return structure, which it does by enumerating fields (member, state/district, ticker, buy/sell, dollar range, dates, PDF link). It also explains how to filter, the data source, and limitations (House-only, range amounts, disclosure lag). This is complete for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results, given the simple read-only nature and annotations covering safety.

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% for all three parameters (limit, action, ticker), so the schema already defines them. The description repeats the ticker usage ('Pass a ticker for one stock, or omit it for the recent feed') which is already in the schema, adding no new semantic depth. It does not elaborate on limit or action beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage and minimal additional meaning.

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's purpose: retrieving congressional stock trades from US House STOCK Act reports, normalized to flat JSON with a specific list of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on congressional trades (not corporate holdings or filings), and the title reinforces this. The verb 'get' and resource are unambiguous.

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 clear usage instructions: 'Pass a ticker for one stock, or omit it for the recent feed.' It also discloses scope limitations ('House-only for now (Senate coming)') and data caveats (amounts are ranges, disclosure lag). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the domain is unique among siblings, so context is sufficient. A minor gap is not stating when to prefer this over, say, get_holdings, but the distinction is implicit.

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