get_committee

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool surfaces other committees of the same candidate and Rule 6 classification, which are key behaviors. However, it does not confirm read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a valuable detail about cross-referencing. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what 'Committee detail' includes, but it only hints at returning other committees. It lacks field descriptions, return structure, and practical examples, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, but the description explains that 'org_id' is an 'Ethics #', adding context beyond the schema's minimal 'Org Id'. However, it provides no format, validation, or examples.

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 it retrieves committee detail by Org ID, and explicitly mentions it also includes other committees of the same candidate, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_continuing. The reference to 'Rule 6' adds specificity.

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 implies usage for looking up committees by an Ethics number, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_continuing or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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