get_policy_textRetrieve the full text of a U.S. federal policy document. Returns the raw legislative or regulatory text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Text format | markdown |
| policy_id | Yes | Policy ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by using 'Retrieve' and 'Returns'. It adds the context that the text is 'raw legislative or regulatory', but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination or response size. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or filler content; every word 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 retrieval tool with two well-described parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. It could mention that the text is returned in full without pagination, but 'full text' already implies this. It is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, with both policy_id and format having descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full text of a U.S. federal policy document and returns the raw legislative or regulatory text. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_policy (likely metadata) and search_policies, using a specific verb and resource.
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 the tool (when full text is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_policy might serve similar but different purposes, yet no direct comparison is provided.
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.