congress_committee_details_by_congress

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 behavioral context about what kind of data is returned (membership for that specific congress vs. all-time), which is useful beyond the annotation. It could mention additional response characteristics, but for a read-only lookup tool with this contrast, the added context is sufficient.

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 'Get detailed information', and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds the distinction from an alternative, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the sibling. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without further elaboration.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description explains the role of the congress parameter as the filtering dimension, but doesn't add semantic details beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema already covers parameters; the description doesn't elevate it further.

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?

Description uses clear verb 'Get detailed information' with a specific resource 'committee' and a specific filter 'by a specific congress number'. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tool congress_committee_details by contrasting 'for that specific congress vs. all-time details', making it distinct from similar tools in the family.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: when you need committee details for a specific congress. It also provides an explicit alternative (congress_committee_details) for all-time details, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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