gov.congress-record

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the tool retrieves 'issues' and allows date filtering, but fails to clarify whether it returns a list of issue identifiers, full transcripts, or metadata. It also omits details about pagination (the offset parameter), rate limits, or error behavior for invalid dates. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocation or misinterpretation of results.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and resource. It is concise with no extraneous words. However, it may be too brief given the lack of parameter explanation and behavioral detail, slightly reducing its efficiency for agent understanding.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the resource but does not specify the structure of the output (e.g., list of issues, full text, metadata fields). The offset parameter, likely for pagination, is not explained. For a simple date-filtered retrieval tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently use it without additional context.

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 explicitly mentions the three date parameters (year, month, day) as filters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definitions with zero descriptions. However, it does not explain the offset parameter, which is non-obvious (likely pagination). With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 retrieving 'Daily Congressional Record issues' and specifies the source (Congress.gov) and the resource type (official US House+Senate proceedings transcript). It also mentions filtering by year/month/day. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.congress-bill or gov.congress-member, which are about different aspects of congressional information.

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 states the filtering capability (by year/month/day), implying its use when one needs Congressional Record issues for specific dates. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives for other congressional data, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling tool names.

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