congress_amendment_text

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by stating the congressional range and the return contents (version types and PDF/HTML URLs). It does not contradict the annotations, and it transparently indicates that the tool returns metadata links rather than the actual amendment text.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by return-value info. No wasted 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?

For a simple fetch tool with three required params and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns (version types and PDF/HTML URLs) and the only major limitation (117th+). This is enough for an agent to know when to use it and what to expect.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra syntax or format details beyond the schema, but the congress parameter's '117th onwards' scope is mentioned in both. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 identifies the operation (get text versions), the resource (a specific amendment), and the scope (117th Congress onwards). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like congress_amendment_details by focusing on text versions and format URLs rather than amendment metadata or lists.

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 states the exact use case (retrieving amendment text versions) and the applicable congressional range, giving an agent clear context for when to select it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a focused data-retrieval tool.

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