politics_representRepresentation lookup for a US ZIP code: both U.S. Senators, the U.S. House member for that ZIP's congressional district, and the state's statewide executives (governor, attorney general, and similar). Every official carries source_url (the capture origin) and source_link (a public page).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes | 5-digit US ZIP code, e.g. 04101 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the specific set of officials returned and the guaranteed presence of source_url and source_link fields on each official. This enriches the output contract beyond what annotations provide.
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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and each clause serves a purpose: defining the input, listing the output scope, and noting the source fields. 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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining return values. It covers the main expected data (officials and their source links) but does not describe the overall response envelope, error handling for invalid ZIPs, or edge cases like multiple districts. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple lookup 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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter (zip) with format guidance ('5-digit US ZIP code, e.g. 04101'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description only restates 'US ZIP code' without adding additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Representation lookup for a US ZIP code.' It enumerates exactly what is returned (both Senators, House member, statewide executives), which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like politics_bill or politics_candidates that serve different purposes.
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 context: use this tool to look up representatives for a US ZIP code. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is unambiguous and excludes other political lookup scenarios implicitly.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose covering different aspects of political data: bills (search, details, text slices, TOC), officials (details, search, by state, representation), bridge pages (create, compare, session, letter), and specialized queries (speeches, votes, positions, provenance). No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'politics_<descriptive_name>' pattern using snake_case. Verbs and nouns are combined logically (e.g., 'politics_bills_search', 'politics_candidate_feed'), with no mixing of conventions.
At 25 tools, the set is comprehensive for a political data API but slightly on the high side. However, each tool covers a specific niche (bills, officials, bridge pages, etc.), and the count is justified by the breadth of the domain. It remains manageable and well-scoped.
The tool surface covers major data types (bills, officials, candidates, speeches, votes, positions) and interaction workflows (bridge pages, watchlists). Minor gaps exist, such as missing a direct 'politician by name and state' endpoint, but the search and filtering tools compensate. Overall, the set is thorough.