lookup_officials

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a set of officials with specific fields and additional info (OCD divisions, coverage notes). It does not mention error handling, data freshness, or potential delays, but the behavioral intent (read-only lookup) is transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core question and efficiently lists all returned elements. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple officials, many fields), the description covers the key aspects. However, it does not specify the response format (e.g., list vs. object) or handle error cases, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 sole parameter 'address' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description clarifies it is an address used to find representatives. It lacks format requirements (e.g., full address vs. zip), which could lead to ambiguity. The description adds moderate meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing 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 uses a clear question format 'Who represents this address?' and specifies the exact officials returned (Senators, House, Governor, state legislators) along with the data fields (party, contact, term, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lookup_by_district' by focusing on address-based 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 implies usage when you have an address and want representatives, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'lookup_by_district' or provide conditions when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or edge cases.

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