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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: notes the experimental nature, coverage gaps (not all states have data), the timeout risk if unscoped, and the coverageNote field in output. This is transparent about limitations and usage constraints without contradicting annotations.

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 concise despite covering multiple aspects—requirement, timeout warning, experimental status, filter usage, and coverageNote. Each sentence serves a purpose and the most critical constraint (jurisdiction) is front-loaded. No filler 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers all essential context: required parameter, timeout constraint, experimental limitations, filter options, and output note. For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema, this is complete and actionable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance: explains the purpose of chamber (upper/lower), classification (subcommittee filtering), and include=memberships (full roster with roles). It also reinforces the critical jurisdiction requirement. This adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('committees') with an explicit scope ('for a jurisdiction'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on committees and emphasizing the required jurisdiction scoping. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from tools like openstates_search_bills or openstates_get_committee.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'jurisdiction is required' and warns about timeout, directing to openstates_list_jurisdictions as an alternative for picking a state. It also gives concrete usage examples for chamber, classification, and include filters. This is exemplary guidance that prevents misuse.

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