congress_crs_report_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by detailing what information will be returned (summary, authors, topics, legislation, format links), giving the agent expectations about the response content without contradicting the annotation.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then list the return contents. No unnecessary words or repetition, achieving high information density.

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 detail tool with one parameter, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states the input (report number) and the output (summary, authors, topics, legislation, format links), which fully covers expected behavior without needing additional context.

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 a well-described 'report_number' parameter including examples. The description only reinforces this by referring to 'report number/ID' and does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Hence, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific CRS report by report number/ID', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also enumerates the output content (summary, authors, topics, related legislation, format links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_crs_reports which likely serve as a list/search function.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving details of one known report, given the requirement of a 'specific report number/ID'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand it should be used after obtaining a report number, likely from congress_crs_reports.

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