congress_committee_print_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile of this read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., response structure, ordering, or scope) beyond the statement of purpose, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage but does not exceed it.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and all required identifiers. It contains no redundant content or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 detail lookup with three fully specified required parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It does not explain what 'details' includes or the return format, but the tool's simplicity and the clear identifier-based lookup make this a minor 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% with each parameter described (chamber, congress number, jacket number). The tool description merely reiterates these parameter names without adding deeper meaning or relationships, so it does not surpass the baseline for fully documented 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 clearly states 'Get details about a specific committee print' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies the needed identifiers (congress, chamber, jacket number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_committee_prints (a list/search tool) and congress_committee_print_text (which focuses on text content).

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 provides clear context: use it when you need details about a specific committee print and have the three identifiers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the specificity ('specific committee print') implicitly guides the agent away from search/list tools.

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