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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Experimental — not all states have committee data' warns the agent about potential empty results. This goes beyond annotations by alerting to incomplete dataset coverage. No contradictions.

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 primary action and resource. The first sentence states what and when (with include=memberships), the second adds the experimental caveat and sourcing direction. No redundant phrasing; every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered. The description covers the essential context: the lookup key (OCD ID), optional include values (implicitly via schema but also mentioned for memberships), availability caveat, and how to obtain the ID. For a simple fetch-by-ID tool, this is 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly tying committee_id to its source ('from openstates_search_committees results') and by mentioning the effect of include=memberships in its opening sentence, reinforcing the schema's description. It does not add syntax beyond schema but provides operational context that helps correct invocation.

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 function: 'Fetch committee detail by OCD organization ID.' It specifies the exact resource (committee) and the identifying parameter. It also indicates what is returned ('Returns name, classification, and membership roster') and differentiates from sibling search tools by referencing how to obtain the ID from openstates_search_committees.

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 concrete usage guidance: it states the prerequisite (obtain committee_id from openstates_search_committees) and flags the experimental nature with state availability caveat. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative get_* tools or state when to use search instead, though the 'obtain from' hint implies a workflow. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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