get_effortRetrieve an effort by ID: the maintained plain-language answer to "what is happening with this?", the full bill lineage across Congresses, current status, next actor, and story coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effort_id | Yes | Effort slug ID (e.g. "safeguard-american-voter-eligibility") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the returned data structure (lineage, status, coverage). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 one well-structured sentence with a front-loaded action ('Retrieve an effort by ID') followed by a concise list of return items. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of return contents (answer, lineage, status, next actor, coverage) provides sufficient completeness for a one-parameter retrieval tool.
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%, with effort_id already described with an example. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond saying 'by ID', which is appropriate given the baseline.
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 'Retrieve an effort by ID' and enumerates specific content (plain-language answer, bill lineage, status, next actor, story coverage), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_policy or get_story.
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 implies when to use this tool—when effort details by ID are needed—but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or reference sibling tools. It provides clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: efforts, members, policies, stories, representatives, voter info, and text retrieval. Even similar tools like get_effort and resolve_effort clearly differ in input type (ID vs natural language), and get_stories vs get_story follow the standard list/detail distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lower_snake_case: get_ for retrieval, search_ for queries, and resolve_ for name resolution. Nouns are clear and descriptive, with no mixing of styles or inconsistent verbs.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a U.S. political policy tracking service. Each tool provides a distinct utility without overwhelming the surface, fitting solidly within the expected range.
The tool surface covers the core read-only workflows: searching and retrieving policies and members, resolving and retrieving efforts, listing and retrieving story bundles, and looking up representatives and voter info. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated purpose.