congress_bill_amendments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds that it shows sponsors, purposes, and status, but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances like pagination, sorting, or what counts as 'filed.' Given the annotation coverage, the description provides modest value but not rich behavioral context, warranting a 3.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's function, and the second provides valuable context without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and significance.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the input requirements (via schema) and the output content (sponsors, purposes, status). It does not go into depth about response format or edge cases, but for this simplicity level it is sufficiently complete, though not exhaustive.

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 for all four parameters, so the schema already documents required and optional fields. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves amendments filed on a specific bill, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the key data displayed (sponsors, purposes, status), and the example 'gutted and replaced' clarifies the use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_amendments 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?

The description provides a clear context for when to use the tool: 'Critical for tracking how bills are modified.' It implies this is the tool for amendment-level detail on a bill, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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