congress_committee_report_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (formatted text and PDF URLs), but no other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error scenarios) are mentioned. No contradiction 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the return format. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description is largely sufficient, clearly stating the return format. However, it lacks context on how this tool fits with related congress tools (e.g., whether users need to first obtain committee report details), which slightly reduces completeness.

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% for all three parameters, with report_type having an enum and clear descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('text versions for a committee report'), and explicitly mentions the output ('Returns formatted text and PDF URLs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_committee_reports (listing) and congress_committee_report_details (metadata).

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 intended use is implied by the description ('Get text versions'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. Sibling tools like congress_committee_report_details could be confused, and no differentiation is provided.

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