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 but fails to mention critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limiting, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or authentication requirements.

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 docstring format with Args/Returns sections is structured, but the inclusion of 'ctx: Context for API requests' is wasteful since ctx is not in the input schema and agents cannot provide it. The rest of the content earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema available (per context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but could improve by clarifying what constitutes a 'report' in this domain.

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 compensates by providing concrete examples for committee_code ('HSJU', 'SSJU') and clarifying that limit controls the maximum number of reports returned. However, it wastefully includes 'ctx' which is not present in the input schema.

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 it retrieves 'reports issued by a specific committee,' distinguishing itself from sibling tools like get_committee_bills or get_committee_communications by specifying the document type (reports). However, it lacks specificity about what kind of reports (e.g., legislative, oversight) which prevents a perfect score.

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 like get_committee_communications or committee_intelligence, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid committee_code from search_committees first).

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