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. It discloses the return value ('List of bills and resolutions') and the limiting behavior, but lacks information on rate limits, error conditions for invalid bioguide_ids, or whether results include historical or current Congress only.

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?

Uses standard Args/Returns docstring format which is structured and scannable. The inclusion of 'ctx' (not in schema) slightly wastes space, but overall information density is good with clear section headers.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the basics. However, given the existence of closely related sibling tools and the specialized domain (Congressional bioguide IDs), it should explain how this differs from cosponsored legislation and hint at how to obtain the required identifier.

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by documenting both 'bioguide_id' (as 'Unique bioguide identifier') and 'limit' (as 'Maximum number of sponsored bills'). However, it mentions 'ctx' which is not in the input schema, and doesn't specify format constraints or valid ranges for the parameters.

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 sponsored by a specific member of Congress,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_member_cosponsored_legislation,' which is a critical distinction in legislative data.

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 'get_member_cosponsored_legislation' or other member lookup tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a bioguide_id from 'get_member_details' or 'search_members' first).

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