list_dockets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering behavior, the fact that both docket and schedule times are reported, and the caching cost ('one request per docket cold, cached afterwards'). It does not mention pagination or error conditions, but these are minor given the read-only nature implied by 'list'.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by essential details (ordering, House alternative, parameter format, time discrepancy, cost). No superfluous words.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what a docket is, its order, the House alternative, the committee format, the time discrepancy, and cost. It omits a definition of session_code but that is a minor gap; the tool is otherwise well-specified.

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. It explains the committee parameter as a Senate committee number or name, but does not describe session_code beyond it being an integer. Since session_code is required but undefined, this is a 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 the tool lists a Senate committee's dockets for a session, with each meeting and its bills. It distinguishes itself by noting the House has no dockets and directs to get_bill_history and list_meetings instead. This is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly says to use get_bill_history and list_meetings for House-related queries, making clear when not to use this tool. It also provides the ordering (newest first) and mentions the potential time discrepancy between docket and schedule, giving context for interpretation.

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