congress_committee_house_communications

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, defaults, or response structure. It does not contradict the annotation, but provides no extra transparency value.

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 a single, concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only query with two well-documented parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential use case. However, with no output schema, a brief note on the return format would make it more complete, though this is not a significant deficiency.

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 both committee_code and limit documented. The description adds no new parameter information; linking 'specific House committee' to committee_code is inherent to the purpose and does not explain format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('House communications'), and the scope ('referred to a specific House committee'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_house_communications (which lists all House communications) and congress_committee_senate_communications (which handles Senate communications).

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 you need House communications for a particular committee, but it does not explicitly recommend alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'for all House communications use congress_house_communications'). No clear usage guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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