Congressional Amendments - Comprehensive amendment operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses that search_amendments is not full-text search, that the limit is capped at 250 for API compliance, that operations fail without required values due to the shared schema, and that text is unavailable before the 117th Congress. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or offset/format behavior, but the most operation-critical behaviors are disclosed.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections, bolded operation groups, and bullet lists, making the information scannable. Some content is repeated between the operations list and the required-parameters note, but the redundancy serves clarity rather than harming it.

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 complex 11-parameter, multi-operation tool, the description covers operation selection, required parameter combinations, parameter semantics, and key API constraints. The only notable gaps are format and offset semantics and lack of default limit/pagination details; otherwise an agent has enough context to invoke 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?

The schema has zero descriptions for its 11 parameters, but the Args section explains 9 of them with concrete formats and allowed values, such as hamdt/samdt for amendment_type, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ for dates, and updateDate+desc/asc for sort. This strongly compensates for the schema gap, though format and offset are omitted from the Args list.

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 identifies the resource (congressional amendments) and enumerates seven concrete operations grouped by function, such as get_amendment_details, get_amendment_actions, and get_amendment_text. This goes far beyond the title and lets an agent understand exactly what operations are available without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit selection criteria within the tool, including which operations require congress, amendment_type, and amendment_number, and which do not. It also flags important limitations such as search_amendments being client-side and limited to 250 amendments, and get_amendment_text requiring congress >= 117. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like bills or laws, so it stops short of a 5.

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