congress_nomination_committees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the returned data (referral, hearing, discharge) but does not disclose pagination limits, authentication requirements, or other behavioral nuances. It is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a brief clarification of what the tool returns. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-described parameters, a read-only annotation, and a clear statement of output content. Although no output schema exists, the description gives a high-level view of the data (committee activities). More detail on response structure would improve completeness, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

Both parameters (congress, nomination_number) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('committees') with a clear qualifier ('associated with a nomination'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_nomination_hearings or congress_nomination_details. It also lists what it shows (activity types), reinforcing the tool's unique purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when needing committees for a nomination) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the many congress_* siblings, a note on differentiation would help, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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