congress_house_communications

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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation already signals the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds a list of communication types, which is more relevant to parameter semantics than to behavioral traits. It does not disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination, default limits, or what happens when no filters are supplied, but no contradiction exists.

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 compact sentences currently lead with the core action ('List House communications') and then clarify the types. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and the meaning of the type filters. It could mention the return format or behavior with no parameters, but these are not critical gaps given the schema and annotations.

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 already covers all three parameters with complete descriptions, including the enum values. The description repeats the enum meanings without adding new information, so it does not materially improve upon the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 lists House communications and enumerates the four types. It is specific about the resource and verb, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like congress_house_communication_details, which likely handles individual communication details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, no indication of preferred scenarios, and no alternative tool names are referenced. For an API with many closely related Congress tools, this omission limits discoverability.

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