congress_committee_prints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds clarifying context about the content (non-report publications, sometimes containing bill text) but doesn't disclose details like pagination, default limits, or response structure. This meets the baseline for a read-only list tool with annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then provides a brief clarifying definition. 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?

For a simple listing tool with five filter parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and scope. It lacks details about output structure, but that is not required given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 all parameters (limit, chamber, congress, toDateTime, fromDateTime) having descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List committee prints' with a specific resource and action. It further defines what committee prints are ('publications ordered by committees that are not committee reports'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool congress_committee_reports.

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 implicitly guides usage by contrasting committee prints with committee reports and noting the common inclusion of Rules Committee prints with bill text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the distinction from reports provides enough context for selection.

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