get_committee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals LIS ordering with chair first, partial-name matching, ambiguity handling, and the meanings of meeting_note and subcommittees. It does not discuss authentication or read-only guarantees, but the tool name and roster semantics make side effects unlikely.

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 three dense sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the output, the second explains identifier semantics, and the third clarifies output fields and subcommittee handling. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema covers return structure, and the description adds solid context for lookup semantics, ambiguity, ordering, and output fields. However, the required session_code parameter is not adequately explained, and there is no explicit tool-selection guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking this tool.

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%, and the description compensates well for committee and chamber, including formats and disambiguation. However, session_code is a required parameter and is only indirectly referenced as 'for a session'; its format or source is not explained, leaving a meaningful 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 clearly states that the tool returns a committee roster with each member's role, party, and district for a session. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_committees and get_member_committees by the focus on a single committee's roster, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It provides useful guidance for ambiguous committee names by telling the caller to pass a chamber or number, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_committees or other committee-related siblings. The intended usage is implied rather than stated.

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