gov.congress-hearing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two query modes but does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. Given it's a read tool, the lack of detail is acceptable but not excellent.

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?

Two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage patterns. No wasted words: the first sentence identifies the source, the second explains the two invocation modes.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter combinations. It omits details like the fact that chamber is an enum (house/senate) and the behavior of pagination parameters. Overall, it is fairly complete but has minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the roles of congress, chamber, jacketNumber, and the date range parameters. It does not detail limit/offset or the enum values for chamber, but it provides the essential interaction logic for the two use cases.

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 'US Congressional hearings' and specifies two distinct modes: single hearing retrieval via congress+chamber+jacketNumber, and listing with optional date range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.congress-bill or gov.congress-member.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode (single hearing vs listing) and which parameters to combine. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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