congress_hearing_details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the returned content (title, date, committees, etc.), but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or potential empty results. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and main output fields. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what the tool returns. It lists several key fields ('title, date, committees, associated meeting, citation, and available text formats'), which gives a solid understanding of the response. However, it uses 'including' suggesting a non-exhaustive list and omits any error-condition or edge-case behavior, leaving slight gaps.

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 each parameter (chamber, congress, jacket_number) having a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning or clarify parameter formats 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 identifies the tool's purpose: fetching detailed information for a single hearing, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific hearing'). It lists the included data categories (title, date, committees, etc.), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like congress_hearings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a jacket number), context for selection, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate, 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.