congress_nominations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds that it shows nominee name, position, organization, and confirmation status, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or any other operational traits. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words.

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 listing tool with 4 documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return field expectations. It doesn't mention default behavior, but that's covered by schema defaults. Sibling differentiation is minimal, but that's a usage guideline issue.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's descriptions of limit, congress, and date filters.

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 the specific verb 'List' with resource 'presidential nominations to federal offices' and enumerates example offices (judges, cabinet, ambassadors, agency heads), plus the fields shown. This clearly distinguishes it from related congress_nomination_details or congress_nomination_committees tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, it is clear it's for listing nominations, which implies use for overviews. There's no explicit alternative named, so it's not a 4.

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