congress_house_communication_details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds some context about the returned fields but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It provides minimal added value beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets directly to the point. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, identifies key return fields, and is backed by a well-documented schema. It could mention prerequisites or relationship to other congress tools, but that is not essential for basic usage.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, though it does mention what information will be returned (abstract, committees, etc.). No conflicts or gaps exist.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific House communication'), and lists distinguishing content fields (abstract, committees, submitting agency, legal authority). This differentiates it from sibling tools like congress_house_communications and other detail tools.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed information on a specific House communication, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when to use the list tool first.

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