US House stock trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds filtering behavior and example, but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or data freshness beyond 'most recent matches'.

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?

Two sentences plus an example, all front-loaded. No fluff; each sentence earns its place by stating purpose, filters, and result. Example is concise and illustrative.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering and expected output ('most recent matches'). It is mostly complete but could mention the limit parameter's role and date inclusivity.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example and clarifies that filters can be combined ('and/or'), but does not deeply explain each parameter beyond 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('Filter', 'returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('US House of Representatives stock transactions'). It distinguishes from sibling 'congress_senate_trades' by specifying 'House'.

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 implies usage for House stock queries via its name and title, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like 'congress_senate_trades' or other financial tools. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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