congress_treaty_committees

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate that. It adds the behavioral note that the result typically includes the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination or potential multiple committees.

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 with no filler words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides useful domain context about the typical committee.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the purpose and the schema covers all parameters, and the annotation covers read-only behavior. There is no output schema, but the description's 'Get committees' implies the return value, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. Could mention response format but is adequate.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters (congress and treaty_number), with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Get committees associated with a treaty.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_treaties or congress_treaty_details, and the added context about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reinforces the specific domain.

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 the tool is for retrieving treaty committees, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for the tool's purpose, but no explicit guidance on alternatives is given.

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