congress_nomination_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read operation. The description adds context about the included actions (committee referral, hearing, vote, confirmation/rejection), which discloses the tool's behavioral scope beyond the annotation.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key inclusions without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 detail lookup with two parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool returns at a high level. It does not mention response structure (no output schema), but the inclusion of 'all actions' gives a reasonable completeness for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters fully with descriptions ('Congress number', 'Nomination number (PN number)'), so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific presidential nomination'), and the scope ('including all actions...'), which distinguishes it from related search/list tools like congress_nominations. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'specific presidential nomination' implies use when you have a known congress and nomination number and need comprehensive detail, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like congress_nomination_full_profile or when not to use this tool.

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