congress_treaty_details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with this. The description adds context about the response content (Senate actions) but does not disclose any operational constraints, rate limits, or limitations. This meets the lowered bar set by annotations without going beyond it.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific treaty') and concisely lists the key content included. There is no redundant or verbose language.

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 two-parameter, read-only details endpoint, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the key content. It does not mention return format or examples, and could clarify its relationship to the full-profile sibling, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 fully describes both required parameters (congress and treaty_number) with clear descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but since the schema already documents them, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information on a specific treaty and enumerates the Senate actions included. It distinguishes the tool from listing-focused siblings like congress_treaties by focusing on detailed per-treaty info, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named congress_treaty_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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to related congress_treaty_* tools, such as congress_treaty_full_profile or congress_treaty_partitioned_details. There is no mention of selection criteria, alternatives, or exclusions.

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