Search committee activities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions that each result includes a related bill summary, which is useful. However, it does not cover other aspects like pagination behavior (despite the 'after' parameter), rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives a practical example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, a typical query example, and the nature of the results (includes bill summary). It could mention pagination or default sorting, but the provided information is sufficient for basic use.

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?

The schema already describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing a concrete usage example mapping 'committeeNameContains' and 'activityNameContains' to a query, which clarifies how to use these parameters together.

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 finds committee activities and their related bills, providing a specific verb-resource pair. The example with 'committeeNameContains' and 'activityNameContains' distinguishes it from siblings like search_bills or search_actions, which focus on other aspects.

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 gives a concrete example of when to use it (e.g., 'bills referred to the Commerce Committee recently'), making the usage context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools beyond the implicit differentiation.

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