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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool fetches committee detail AND member list in parallel, setting expectations for response composition. No contradiction exists.

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, each earning its place: the first front-loads the trigger condition, the second states the action, and the third provides actionable next-step guidance. The ALL-CAPS emphasis on 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and 'AFTER calling' highlights the most decision-relevant text. No fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the next step in the workflow, which is complete guidance for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%; the schema already documents committee_id as coming from committees_search_committees results. The description reinforces this source and shows the parameter's role in the follow-up workflow, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Fetches committee detail and member list in parallel.' The trigger condition 'when you have a committee_id' clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools like law_committees_search_committees, and the mention of 'metadata + current membership' defines the exact scope.

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 opens with an explicit when-to-use directive ('USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a committee_id'), and it names a related alternative ('pass committee_id into committees_search_evidence') with a clear workflow instruction. The when-not-to-use is strongly implied by the conditional phrasing, making this a model of usage guidance.

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