congress_senate_communication_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns abstract, committees, and congressional record date, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or required authority.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and each detail (abstract, committees, congressional record date) adds value 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?

For a simple detail-retrieval tool with a read-only annotation and three fully documented parameters, the description adequately covers the core purpose and return content. It could mention the relationship to congress_senate_communications for discoverability, but that is not essential for this tool's use.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, including an enum for communication_type. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 3 applies since it neither enhances nor conflicts with schema semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific Senate communication'), and enumerates three concrete content areas (abstract, committees, congressional record date). This differentiates it from sibling tools like congress_senate_communications (list) and congress_house_communication_details (House variant).

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 that this tool is for retrieving details of a single, known Senate communication, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. the list tool or mention any exclusions/alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites like needing the communication number beforehand.

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