congress_house_requirements

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool lists recurring reporting obligations and includes specific output fields (requirement number, frequency, matching communications count). It does not contradict the annotations and provides value beyond what the structured data already conveys.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no extraneous content. Every phrase contributes useful 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with a readOnly annotation, the description adequately explains what the resource is and what fields are returned. It doesn't mention pagination or a detailed return structure, but the limit parameter is covered by the schema and the output fields are specified, making it reasonably complete.

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 schema description for 'limit' is complete (max results, default 20, exclusiveMinimum 0), providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, but the baseline is 3 because the schema fully describes the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('House requirements'), and further distinguishes the tool by defining it as 'recurring reporting obligations from executive agencies to Congress' while noting the displayed fields (requirement number, frequency, matching communications count). This clearly separates 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 this is the listing tool for House requirements but does not explicitly state when to use it versus related tools such as congress_house_requirement_details or congress_house_requirement_matching_communications. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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