congress_committee_print_text

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared in annotations, the description adds some value by specifying the return content (formatted text and PDF URLs). However, it does not disclose any limitations, such as scope of availability, pagination, or potential absence of PDF links.

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, and contains zero superfluous words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with three clear parameters and an output description, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explanation of what a committee print is or any edge cases, but these are arguably unnecessary for an agent with basic domain knowledge.

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 coverage is 100% with basic field descriptions, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The term 'jacket_number' is left unexplained, and the description does not clarify how to obtain or format the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('text versions for a committee print'). It also states the return type ('formatted text and PDF URLs'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like congress_committee_print_details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as congress_committee_print_details or congress_committee_report_text. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for use.

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