congress_search_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the endpoint shapes, which clarify how parameters combine (e.g., district requires state, congress can be used alone). It does not disclose return format or pagination behavior, but the added endpoint details are meaningful 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose with key filters, and the second lists the exact endpoint patterns in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most important 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?

With 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage patterns comprehensively via the endpoint list. However, it does not mention behavior when currentMember is omitted (i.e., whether results include both current and former members) or pagination details beyond the limit parameter. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The description's 'Supports:' list echoes parameter combinations but does not add substantive new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., schema already notes state can be used with district, and congress 'Use alone to list all members'). Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search for members of Congress by state, congress number, district, or get all current members.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('members of Congress'), and enumerates filter dimensions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_member_details (which fetches details for a specific member) and congress_member_full_profile.

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 clear context on how to use the tool via the supported endpoint patterns (e.g., '/member/{stateCode}', '/member/congress/{congress}'), and mentions the 'get all current members' use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the supported patterns imply when each filter combination is appropriate. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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