congress_senate_communications

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already establishes the read-only nature, so the description's 'List' is consistent. The description adds minor context about the types being 'referred to Senate committees', but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, response format, or any potential limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes modest additional value.

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 action and resource, the second enumerates the type codes with expansions. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded with the verb and provides high-level context without redundancy. Even though the type list is also in the schema, it serves a quick-reference purpose in the description.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed and the three types. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly given the simple parameters. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation, and the description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%: limit, congress, and communication_type all have descriptions in the schema. The description repeats the type codes and their meanings, which is already in the schema, but does not add new meaning beyond that. The schema carries the full burden, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Senate communications', further specifying three subcategories (executive communications, presidential messages, petitions/memorials). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_senate_communication_details (which implies detail lookup) and congress_house_communications (which covers the House).

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 listing Senate communications, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions such as using congress_senate_communication_details for individual records. The presence of sibling tools with similar naming suggests differentiation, but the description itself provides no explicit when/when-not guidance beyond the verb 'List' and the type enumeration.

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