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. While it mentions returning a 'List of nominations,' it omits critical behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, sorting order, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid committee codes). The mention of 'ctx' parameter is extraneous as it does not appear in the input schema.

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 scannable. The first sentence immediately conveys purpose. However, including 'ctx' in Args adds slight confusion since it is not part of the user-facing input schema, and the Returns section is somewhat tautological ('List of nominations referred to the committee').

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the brief return description is acceptable. Both input parameters are documented despite zero schema coverage. However, for a specialized government data tool, the description lacks context on what constitutes a 'nomination' in this domain and omits pagination details that would be necessary for handling large result sets.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively documents both parameters: committee_code includes concrete examples ('HSJU', 'SSJU') and limit explains its purpose ('Maximum number of nominations'). This successfully compensates for the bare schema, though it could further clarify valid formats or constraints for committee_code.

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 core action ('Get nominations') and scope ('referred to a specific committee'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling committee tools like get_committee_bills or get_committee_communications, leaving the agent to infer this handles nominations specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether committee_code should be obtained via search_committees first). The description lacks explicit when/when-not conditions.

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