congress_amendment_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds that the tool returns 'actions/timeline', which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe response format, pagination, or potential errors. Since annotations cover the read-only aspect, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 only two sentences and about 20 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get'. Every phrase contributes either to purpose or required inputs. There is no fluff or redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 detail lookup with fully required params, this description is minimally adequate. But it doesn't elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes beyond 'actions/timeline', doesn't clarify the omitted suamdt type, and doesn't differentiate from close siblings like congress_amendment_text. Given no output schema, additional context would improve completeness.

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 descriptions are tautological ('Congress number', 'Amendment type', 'Amendment number'), so the description needed to add real value. Instead, it repeats those labels and even omits a valid enum value (suamdt) by listing only 'hamdt/samdt'. It provides no format hints or examples for amendment_number (string vs number), making the parameter information less useful than the 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific amendment'), and adds content scope ('including its actions/timeline'). It identifies the required identifiers, distinguishing it from list-style tools like congress_amendments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling detail tools such as congress_amendment_text, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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. The description only restates required parameters, which is schema information. It doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., congress_amendment_text) or give exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from vague wording.

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