congress_nomination_nominees

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read operation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about the multi-position ordinals and the prerequisite tool, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This is similar to the TDQS 4.3 example where annotations cover safety and the description adds some scope context, warranting a 3.

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. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by a necessary caveat and a clear pointer to the prerequisite tool. There is no filler or redundant 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 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description covers the purpose, the ordinal context, and the prerequisite workflow. It doesn't explain response format, but the schema covers the limit parameter and the absence of an output schema lowers the burden. It is complete enough for effective use, though slightly less than a fully self-contained description.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive text for each parameter (e.g., 'Position ordinal (typically 1)'). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why the ordinal is needed ('Some nominations contain multiple positions') and how to discover the correct value ('Use congress_nomination_details first'). This extra context elevates the baseline from 3 to 4.

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 function: 'Get the list of nominees for a specific position within a nomination.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (list of nominees), and context (specific position within a nomination). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like congress_nomination_details by focusing on nominees and referencing ordinals.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use congress_nomination_details first to see the ordinal numbers.' This tells the agent when and how to use this tool relative to an alternative, including a prerequisite step. It also explains the need for the ordinal parameter with 'Some nominations contain multiple positions (ordinals).'

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