congress_house_requirement_matching_communications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not responsible for safety disclosure. It adds useful context that the communications are agency submissions for recurring reporting obligations, but it does not mention pagination, return format, or any limitations beyond what annotations already cover.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 query tool with read-only annotation and two parameters, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain what the communications contain, how matching is performed, or what the response looks like—especially relevant since no output schema exists.

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%: both limit and requirement_number include descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('communications that match a specific House requirement'), and further clarifies the domain with 'agency submissions fulfilling a recurring reporting obligation.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_house_communications or congress_house_requirement_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?

The description implies usage when you have a House requirement number, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as congress_house_communications, nor does it explain how to find requirement numbers. Context is present but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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