gov.congress-nomination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. It only states basic functionality.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the two main use cases but does not explain the return structure (e.g., is it a list or single object?). Given no output schema, more detail on results would improve completeness. Sibling tools provide context but the description could be more self-contained.

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?

Input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'congress' and 'number' identify a single nomination and that date range filters can be applied. It does not cover 'limit' and 'offset', but they are standard pagination.

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 the tool handles US presidential nominations sent to the Senate, which is distinct from sibling tools dealing with amendments, bills, committees, etc. It specifies the resource and verb (retrieve nominations).

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 usage patterns: 'Pass congress+number for single nomination' and 'filter by congress + date range'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools cover different congressional entities, making it clear when to use this one.

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