CongressMCP-full

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 clarifies the relationship scope ('referred to or reported by') but fails to address safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), error handling for invalid committee codes, pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, or data freshness.

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 Args/Returns structure is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently documents parameters without excessive verbosity. However, mentioning 'ctx' (an internal context parameter) adds noise that AI agents typically don't need to see.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic parameters but lacks contextual nuances such as whether 'referred to' and 'reported by' are inclusive filters, the time range of returned bills, or how to handle committees with no bills.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting both user-facing parameters: it provides concrete examples for committee_code ('HSJU', 'SSJU') and clarifies that limit controls the maximum bills returned. It loses one point for including 'ctx' (likely internal plumbing) and lacking format constraints (e.g., regex for committee codes).

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 retrieves bills 'referred to or reported by a specific committee,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'bills' or 'search_committees' that could also retrieve bill information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the generic 'bills' tool or 'search_committees.' It omits prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid committee_code) and does not specify if this covers current congress only or historical data.

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