get_member_committees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the underlying multi-request behavior, the cold-request counts, and the caching behavior, which is valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 description is complete for a read-only lookup tool: it explains the purpose, the data returned, and the performance characteristics. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description explains the member_id and session_code implicitly (member and session), and mentions include_subcommittees by noting the 67-request cost with subcommittees. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter's format or meaning, so the compensation is partial.

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 and resource: it returns every committee seat a member holds in a session, with the role. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_member_bills and list_committees, 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?

The description explains why this endpoint exists (LIS has no member-first committee endpoint) and gives concrete context about the request cost (14 requests cold for a House member, 67 with subcommittees, cached afterwards). It implies when to use it—when you need a member's committee seats—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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