congress_nomination_full_profile

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

The description discloses that this is a composite tool combining 4 endpoints in parallel, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also clarifies the scope ('complete profile', 'full action timeline'). No contradictions with annotations. Could be more detailed about potential response size or performance, but it provides solid transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence delivers the core value proposition, the second clarifies what it replaces, and the third gives use-case context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's composite nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what data is included and when to use it. It mentions the four sub-endpoints and the nomination lifecycle. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether the response is paginated or large, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke successfully.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Congress number' and 'Nomination number (PN number)'). The description does not add deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a COMPLETE presidential nomination profile in ONE call' and enumerates the exact components (nomination details, full action timeline, committee referrals/activity, and associated hearings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the individual endpoints it replaces.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of calling congress_nomination_details + congress_nomination_committees + congress_nomination_hearings individually.' It also provides an 'Ideal for' scenario (tracking nominations) and suggests a cross-reference with lobbying_search, giving clear context on when to choose this tool.

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