Search Members of Congress - Find representatives and senators by criteria

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic filtering. It doesn't mention whether partial name matching is case-insensitive, how district filter interacts with state/chamber, pagination behavior, or any API-specific constraints like rate limits or required authentication.

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 description is structured as an argument list with parameter names and brief descriptions, followed by a returns statement. It's reasonably concise for eight parameters, though the parameter details are shallow (e.g., 'State code' doesn't specify format beyond the example). The structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward search filter (with all params optional), the description provides enough for basic usage. However, it lacks clarity on required filters (can it run with no filters?), search behavior with multiple filters (AND vs OR), and result ordering. The description is complete for simple cases but incomplete for more nuanced queries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists all parameters and gives examples (state codes, chamber values, party codes). However, it doesn't explain nuances like whether chamber expects exact case, whether congress number requires specific format, or how district is interpreted without state (whether it implies state requirement). The baseline is 3 since schema covers all parameters, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the property names.

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 identifies the tool as searching for members of Congress with multiple filter criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_members_by_congress and get_members_by_state by supporting a broad criteria-based search rather than a single fixed lookup.

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 lists all filter parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools like get_members_by_congress_state_district or get_members_by_state. It does not mention that this is a general search entry point while siblings are targeted lookups.

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