congress_committee_meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful context about return content (dates, locations, topics) but does not disclose pagination, default limits, or relationship between returned meeting dates and the update-date filters. It does not contradict 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and content. Every phrase is informational; no filler words or vague claims.

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 covers the main return fields and the two primary filters, but it omits the date-range filters (fromDateTime/toDateTime) entirely and does not mention default or maximum result count. For a list tool with no output schema, it gives a reasonable but not exhaustive picture.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description highlights the congress and chamber filters in natural language but adds no additional detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as formats or defaults.

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 identifies the tool as a list operation for committee meetings, specifying the resource (committee meetings), the verb (list), and the content (dates, locations, topics). It also includes examples of meeting types and mentions filters, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like congress_committee_meeting_details that provide detail lookups.

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 context by stating what the tool lists and that it can be filtered by congress and chamber. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the phrase '(hearings, markups, etc.)' signals it covers a broader set than dedicated hearings tools, giving reasonable context for an agent to select it when needing a list of committee meetings.

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