congress_bill_cosponsors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns party affiliation and sponsorship dates, but does not disclose pagination behavior or that the default/max limit of 250 may prevent returning a truly 'full list' for bills with more cosponsors.

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 main action and immediately followed by a valuable sibling comparison. 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?

There is no output schema, and while the description mentions the type of data returned (party affiliation, sponsorship dates), it fails to explain the impact of the limit parameter on 'full list' semantics or describe pagination behavior. For a list endpoint with a 250 cap, this is a notable completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond indicating the output context, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full list of cosponsors for a bill'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling congress_bill_details by noting it returns individual cosponsor details rather than a party breakdown summary.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative congress_bill_details and explains the key difference, telling the agent when to choose this tool over that sibling. This provides clear usage context and differentiation.

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