Get a representative

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming no side effects. The description adds behavioral traits: returns exactly 5 most recently active sponsored bills and limits to factual data. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about what is included and excluded.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool, second sentence clarifies constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description provides a good sense of the response: 'full details' plus 5 bills. It covers the key constraints (by bioguide, facts only) and is sufficient for agent decision. Minor lack of exact field names, but overall complete for this simple tool.

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 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters (bioguide ID example, locale options). The description reinforces the bioguide example but does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full details for one member of Congress', and the method 'by bioguide ID'. It also specifies additional included data (5 most recently active sponsored bills). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_representatives (search) and get_bill (bill-focused).

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 includes 'Facts only: no scorecards, ratings, or vote grades,' which informs the agent when not to use this tool (i.e., when opinionated data is needed). It implicitly suggests using this when you have a bioguide ID and require comprehensive details plus recent bills, though alternatives are not explicitly named.

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