congress_bound_congressional_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. It adds context about the bound nature and filtering capability, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits, what happens with no filters, or response format. The added context is useful but limited beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the main action ('Get bound Congressional Record issues'), and includes the key qualifier 'permanent, final publication' without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place.

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 conveys the essential purpose and distinguishes from the daily edition. While no output schema exists, the description does not specify the return format or pagination behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (year, month, day, limit). The description adds only a high-level 'Filter by year, month, and day,' which does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get bound Congressional Record issues' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies 'the permanent, final publication of proceedings,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_daily_congressional_record.

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 phrase 'permanent, final publication' provides clear context that this tool is for the bound edition as opposed to daily editions, implying the appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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