congress_amendment_cosponsors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds minimal context by noting output fields. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, default limit of 250, or response structure, so it sits at the baseline enabled by the annotation.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get cosponsors of a specific amendment') and then adds a useful output detail, earning a top conciseness score.

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 simple, read-only lookup tool with fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks usage guidance and richer return-value detail, but the schema and readOnlyHint cover most operational needs.

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%, with every parameter (congress, amendment_type, amendment_number, limit) having a basic description. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the schema itself carries the weight; no value is added beyond the structured definition.

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 action ('Get cosponsors') and the specific resource ('of a specific amendment'). It also previews the returned data ('party affiliation and sponsorship details'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_bill_cosponsors or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The only implied usage is the need for a specific amendment's identifiers, which is already evident from the required parameters.

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