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 states the return type ('List of bills and resolutions'), it lacks critical behavioral details: pagination behavior when results exceed the limit, default sorting order, error handling for invalid bioguide_ids, or what specific fields are included in the returned bills.

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 and Returns sections is structured and appropriately sized. Each section serves a purpose. Minor deduction for including the non-user-facing 'ctx' parameter in the Args section, which wastes a small amount of cognitive load.

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 output schema exists (documenting return structure externally), the description adequately covers inputs for this 2-parameter tool. However, it lacks important contextual gaps: differentiation from sponsored legislation, pagination cursor handling, and guidance on obtaining bioguide_id values. Minimum viable but clear gaps remain.

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 Args section effectively documents both user-facing parameters: bioguide_id is described as a 'Unique bioguide identifier' and limit as 'Maximum number of cosponsored bills to return'. However, it confusingly includes 'ctx' (likely a framework-injected context parameter not present in the input schema), which is noise for the agent.

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 'legislation cosponsored by a specific member of Congress' with a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_member_sponsored_legislation', which is a critical distinction for an agent selecting between the two.

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, particularly the sibling 'get_member_sponsored_legislation'. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing a valid bioguide_id from another tool), no exclusion criteria, and no workflow context.

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