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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: documents appear on committee websites within hours (unlike the printed record), and matching is against the headline/slug only, not full text — including the caveat that an empty result means no headline match, not absence of subject. This goes well beyond the 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope and content, use-case examples, timing/alternative, and critical limitation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and ends with an important caveat, with no fluff.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is searched, which committees are covered, timing relative to official records, and the interpretation of empty results. It orients the agent for correct invocation and result interpretation without needing to guess.

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 covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions and examples (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the query matching semantics, which is already stated in the schema's query description. No compensation needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find documents published by a congressional committee on its own website') and enumerates concrete content types (press releases, oversight letters, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by noting the alternative search_congressional_documents covers the official printed record that lags by months.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for "what has House Oversight said about X"...') and an explicit exclusion: the official printed record is handled by search_congressional_documents. It also warns about the headline-only matching limit with an instruction on interpreting empty results.

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