get_early_day_motion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and discloses the payload shape, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for an unknown edm_id. For a simple lookup this is passable but thin.

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 same content is asserted three times in a row ('Get EDM details' | 'Get full text and signature details' | 'Returns EDM text, primary sponsor, supporters, signature count') before the Args/Returns boilerplate. The keyword-stuffed pipe header plus restatements waste space without adding information.

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 description need not explain return values, and one well-known integer key is easy to supply. What is missing is the retrieval context an agent needs — where edm_id comes from and how this differs from the search/list EDM siblings — leaving it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that edm_id is 'The EDM ID number', adding no format, range, or provenance (e.g. where to obtain the ID) beyond the schema's integer type. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get EDM details' / 'Early Day Motion') and enumerates what is retrieved (text, sponsors, signature count), which is enough to separate it from search siblings. It never names the closest alternative, search_early_day_motions, so differentiation is inferred from the id-based framing rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required edm_id signals a single-record lookup, contrasting with the list/search siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of search_early_day_motions as the alternative for discovery.

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