congress_amendment_amendments

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

The description adds a small clarification that the returned amendments 'modify the parent amendment,' but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or return format. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is covered, so the description need not explain that it's read-only.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get sub-amendments') and then clarifies the relationship in a second short sentence.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (4 params, no output schema). The description provides the essential context—what the tool returns and how it relates to a parent amendment. However, it doesn't specify the output structure or pagination behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (limit, congress, amendment_type, amendment_number). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'sub-amendments to a specific amendment,' clarifying that it returns amendments that modify a parent amendment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_amendments and congress_amendment_details.

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 needing sub-amendments for a given amendment, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or references to comparable tools. The context is derived from the purpose rather than explicit guidance.

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