congress_committee_reports_for_committee

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds context that the reports are formal committee reports accompanying legislation. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or how it differs from other report endpoints beyond the committee scoping; given the annotation already covers the read-only safety, this is acceptable but thin.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences convey purpose and a key prerequisite without redundancy. Every clause adds information.

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 filtered-list tool with a read-only annotation, the description covers the fundamental purpose and a required-parameter acquisition path. It does not detail the output structure, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'shows formal committee reports' phrase. Still, an agent might want more return-field information, so it's not perfect.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions and formats. The description adds value by instructing to use congress_committees to discover the committee_code, which is the key parameter needed for correct invocation. This elevates it above a pure schema baseline.

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 opens with 'Get reports published by a specific committee,' clearly identifying the action and object. It distinguishes from generic committee-level tools by specifying 'specific committee' and points to congress_committees for the code, which aligns with the known sibling set.

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?

It gives clear context that this tool is for committee-specific reports and instructs the user to consult congress_committees for the required committee_code. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions for alternative report tools, but the specific-committee framing implies when to use it over broader report endpoints.

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