congress_amendments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Search/list' and 'Returns' align with a read operation, so no contradiction. It adds the type code meanings (hamdt = House, etc.) and the output fields, but provides no further behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or default behavior beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes the return fields with no unnecessary words or restating of the tool name.

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 description adequately covers the purpose, key filters, and return fields, which is sufficient for a read-only search tool with a fully documented schema. However, it could be more complete by naming the appropriate alternative for detailed amendment lookup (e.g., congress_amendment_details) or noting pagination/sorting behavior.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description carries a low burden. It does clarify the meaning of the amendment_type enum values and that congress and type are the primary filters, but it adds no additional syntax or semantics for the date/time parameters or limit.

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 'Search/list amendments by congress and optional type' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the amendment type codes. It also lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like congress_bill_amendments or congress_amendment_details, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implication that this tool is used to search amendments by congress and type is present, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that congress_amendment_details would be used for a specific amendment's full detail or that congress_bill_amendments is for amendments within a specific bill.

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