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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the return includes both senators and House representatives, but does not discuss potential limitations (e.g., current vs. historical, territories). Overall, it complements annotations but does not significantly expand upon them.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope, earning its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description provides the essential information. It identifies the resource and scope (federal legislators for a state, both chambers). However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at the output fields (e.g., name, party) or structure, but this is not critical for a basic list operation.

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% for the single parameter 'state', which already describes its meaning ('Two-letter state code (e.g., MI)'). The description does not add any additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('federal legislators for a state') and scope ('both senators and all House representatives'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'lookup_representatives' or 'get_representative_profile' by its comprehensive listing purpose.

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 usage for obtaining a complete delegation list but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_representatives' or 'get_representative_profile'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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