gov.congress-member

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes that bioguide IDs are stable across history, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and query options. There is no fluff; every word adds value.

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?

Despite 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain pagination (limit/offset defaults), result format, or what to expect when no parameters are provided. This is inadequate for a tool with such a rich schema.

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 description mentions key parameters (bioguideId, state, district, congress, currentMember) but not limit/offset. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming, especially given 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a US Congress member lookup by bioguide ID or filtered list, specifying the filterable fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `gov.congress-bill` and `gov.congress-committee`, which focus on other congressional entities.

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 outlines two primary use cases: lookup by bioguide ID or filtered list with state, district, congress, and currentMember. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to other tools, but the context of sibling tool names makes the scope clear.

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