congress_committee_report_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get detailed information' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds context about the returned fields (bills, title, issue date, text versions) but does not disclose potential pitfalls, authentication needs, or response formatting. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 focused sentence that immediately states the verb and object, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 straightforward detail-retrieval tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose and the kind of data returned. However, it leaves ambiguity around 'text versions' (vs. full text) and does not specify any limitations or fallback behavior. Given that there is no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough to remain adequate.

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?

All three parameters (congress, report_type, report_number) have descriptions in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented. The mention of 'specific committee report' does not elaborate on how these parameters combine, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 resource (specific committee report) and the type of information returned (associated bills, title, issue date, text versions), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like congress_committee_reports or congress_committee_report_text, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit cue is the word 'specific,' but there is no explicit reference to sibling tools or use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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