get_committee_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is an aggregator call that folds in search, details, oral evidence, written evidence, and publications, which is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits operational traits like result size, pagination, or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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 composite scope is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage guidance and the constituent-tool list. The middle pipe-delimited keyword string ('complete committee info, inquiry overview, committee research, full committee details') is somewhat redundant padding, but overall it is compact and readable.

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?

For a single-required-parameter aggregator with an output schema present, the description needn't restate return values and covers purpose, usage, and composition adequately. It lacks any caveats about coverage limits or cost of the aggregate call, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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: it defines 'topic' as a search term for committee name or subject area and provides concrete examples ('Treasury', 'Health', 'Defence'). That meaningfully exceeds the bare string schema, though it doesn't discuss matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy).

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 summary') and immediately discloses its composite scope, naming the five constituent tools (search_committees, get_committee_by_id, get_oral_evidence, get_written_evidence, get_publications). This lets an agent distinguish it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition: 'Use when you need complete information about a committee's work without multiple tool calls,' and routes to a related tool via 'See also: get_committee_bills.' It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when only one artifact type is needed), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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