Treaties and Summaries - Legislative treaties and bill summaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does usefully disclose that the schema marks every parameter optional while certain operations fail without congress and treaty_number. It also surfaces the max limit of 250 for API compliance and sort/date format expectations. It does not address read-only status, auth, or error behavior, but it adds substantive operational context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but the operation list is repeated almost verbatim in the 'TREATIES OPERATIONS' and 'TREATIES/SUMMARIES' sections. This redundancy adds length without new information, though the rest of the structure is organized and scannable.

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 complex 13-parameter, multi-operation router with an output schema, the description covers the operation dispatch model, required parameter combinations, API limits, and date formats. The main gaps are unmentioned format/offset parameters and lack of sibling routing guidance, but the core calling contract is well explained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args section defines 11 of 13 parameters with concrete meaning, including congress numbering, keyword/topic/bill_type filters, limit, and date format. It omits format and offset and is vague on treaty_suffix, but overall it provides far more parameter context than the bare 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 identifies the tool as focused access to treaties and bill summaries and enumerates five specific sub-operations with one-line purposes. It is distinguishable from sibling bill, law, and member tools by its domain, though the verb 'access' is somewhat generic for a multi-operation router.

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 operation-specific parameter requirements but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_bill_text, bills, or laws. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements relative to alternatives, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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