congress_nomination_hearings

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns hearing dates, citations, and chambers, but does not disclose other traits like pagination, data source, or what 'printed' means. The description provides some value beyond the annotations but lacks depth.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant details, earning its place with relevant output information.

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, and the description explains the return content, which is crucial given there is no output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could mention how to obtain the nomination number if not already known.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing 'Congress number' and 'Nomination number' directly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('printed hearings associated with a nomination'). It also lists the key output fields ('hearing dates, citations, and chambers'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like congress_nomination_details or congress_hearings.

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 usage for nomination-related hearings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or point to other tools for non-nomination hearings, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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