congress_bill_committees

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about what data is returned (dates and actions), but does not cover potential limitations such as whether subcommittees are included, pagination, or empty results. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, and the second adds relevant detail about scope and actions. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only tool with three clearly defined parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and return content. It could go slightly further by noting whether subcommittees are included or what date format is used, but overall it is complete enough for a simple tool.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage (congress, bill_type, bill_number). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves committees a bill was referred to, with activity dates and actions taken (referral, hearings, markup, reporting). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_bill_actions or congress_committee_bills.

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 implies usage when committee referral info is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like congress_bill_actions or congress_committee_bills. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool names, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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