get_committee_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned payload ('purpose, members, departments scrutinized, and contact information'), warns that include_banners 'May increase response size', and notes the public-only default. It says nothing about permissions, behavior on an invalid/nonexistent committee_id, or error cases, which a zero-annotation tool ideally would cover.

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 Args/Returns structure is clean and front-loaded, but the keyword-list sentence is pure redundancy with the surrounding text and adds no information for an agent. Removing that clause would lose nothing, so the definition is not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns restatement is harmless redundancy rather than a gap. Parameters, defaults, prerequisites, and sibling routing are all covered, giving an agent enough to call the tool correctly. Only the absence of any exclusion criteria or failure-mode guidance keeps it from 5.

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 must compensate and it does: committee_id is marked required with an example (739) and instructions to obtain it from committee search first; include_banners is given its default (false) and the consequence of enabling it; show_on_website_only is given its default (true) plus a usage recommendation. All three parameters carry semantics absent from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get comprehensive committee profile and membership details') and names sibling tools (get_committee_summary, get_committee_members, get_committee_bills) so the agent can see it is not the summary or members-only variant. However the keyword-stuffed pipe segment ('committee information, committee members, committee purpose, parliamentary committee, scrutiny committee') muddies rather than sharpens the purpose, and the siblings are listed as links rather than differentiated.

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?

Gives concrete use contexts ('understanding committee roles, finding committee members, or researching committee activities') and a prerequisite for the required param ('get from committee search first'). It also advises show_on_website_only is 'Recommended for general use'. No explicit when-not-this-tool condition is given, so it stops short of 5.

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