congress_law_details

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already signals a safe read-only operation. The description adds context about the type of information returned (sponsors, CBO cost estimates, committee reports, constitutional authority statement) but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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: the first front-loads the core purpose and output contents, and the second states the required inputs. There is no filler, redundancy, or ambiguity. Every word contributes to the description's utility.

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 lookup with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns (sponsors, CBO estimates, committee reports, constitutional authority statement), and what inputs are needed. This compensates for the lack of an output schema and makes the tool easy to select and invoke.

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% description coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (congress, law_type, law_number). The tool description merely restates that these parameters are required, adding no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies per the rubric for 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 starts with 'Get detailed information about a specific public or private law' which clearly specifies the action (get detailed information) and the resource (a specific public/private law). It also lists representative content (sponsors, CBO cost estimates, committee reports, constitutional authority statement), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_bill_details or congress_recent_laws.

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 states the prerequisites ('Requires congress number, law type, and law number') and uses 'specific' to convey that it is for retrieving details about an already‑identified law, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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