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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: missing years return found:false with a named reason rather than an empty list, and coverage begins with fiscal year 1994. It also identifies the source as U.S. Congress data published by GPO.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then immediately covers status states, example use cases, missing-year behavior, coverage, and source. Every sentence contributes operational or scoping information. It is appropriately sized for a lookup tool with one parameter.

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 and the input schema fully documents the sole parameter, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: what the tool finds, what statuses it reports, how missing data is represented, temporal coverage, and data provenance. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the fiscal_year parameter is already well documented in the input schema as a federal fiscal year covering October through September. The description reinforces this with concrete examples like FY2024 and FY2027 and notes the 1994-onward coverage boundary. It adds useful framing but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 and resource: finding congressional budget resolutions for a fiscal year and their status. It clearly distinguishes the object as H.Con.Res./S.Con.Res. and explains the possible progress states. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools such as budget_resolution_targets or resolution_audit.

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 gives concrete example questions that indicate when to use the tool, such as asking whether a budget resolution was adopted for FY2024. It also explains the behavior for years with no resolution, which helps set expectations. However, it does not name alternatives or state when another tool would be more appropriate.

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