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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds filter and return-field context, but does not clarify behavior such as whether jurisdiction is effectively required or how pagination defaults work; the schema partially covers that.

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?

Three sentences deliver the essential resource, filters, output fields, use cases, and jurisdiction format without fluff. The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations, output schema, and 100% schema description coverage, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It covers the main selection criteria and jurisdiction format; pagination details are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds useful examples (chamber as upper/lower, type as committee/subcommittee, jurisdiction codes like "ca"), but these mostly restate the schema rather than add significant new meaning.

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 and resource: "List legislative committees for a US state" with optional filters. It distinguishes this from sibling OpenStates tools like bill_detail, bills_search, and people_search by focusing clearly on committees and their returned attributes.

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 clear context for when the tool is useful: "identifying which committee oversees a policy area or finding where a bill is assigned." It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use-case framing is enough to guide selection.

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