congress_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about the returned content (sessions, dates, chambers) and potential uses. It does not describe pagination or list limits, but those are already covered in the schema. Since the read-only nature is annotated, the description's additional behavioral context is sufficient. No contradiction.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and key data fields. It avoids redundancy with the schema and provides two concrete use cases without excess length. Every clause 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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, returned data (dates, numbers, chambers), and target use cases. It does not explicitly mention the default 'list recent congresses' behavior, but that is present in the schema, so the description is adequately 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, current, congress). The description does not add parameter-level detail but aligns with the meanings conveyed in the schema. With full schema coverage, 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 specifies a concrete verb-resource pairing ('Get information about congresses and their sessions') and enumerates the data fields (start/end dates, session numbers, chambers). It clearly differentiates from sibling congress_* tools focused on bills, members, or votes. The inclusion of use cases ('look up when a congress was in session, or get current congress details') reinforces its distinct scope.

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 clear context: use this for congress/session information and for current congress details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the focused scope implies the right conditions. The use case statement is actionable, so it merits a 4 rather than a 3.

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