congress_treaty_full_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing it combines '3 endpoints in parallel,' implying potential latency and composite data fetching. It does not describe error handling or response format, but for a read-only composite, this is acceptable and adds value 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?

Two efficient sentences plus a short 'Ideal for' line. Key information about the tool's purpose and advantage is front-loaded ('Get a COMPLETE treaty profile in ONE call'), with zero filler or 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 composite tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the contents (details, timeline, committees) and the recommended usage. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'full action timeline' entails or any limitations, but the description is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both congress and treaty_number. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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's function: 'Get a COMPLETE treaty profile in ONE call' and enumerates the combined components (treaty details, full action timeline, committee assignments). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming congress_treaty_details and congress_treaty_committees, making the composite nature obvious.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of calling congress_treaty_details + congress_treaty_committees individually.' It also gives concrete use cases ('International agreement research and Senate Foreign Relations Committee tracking'), making alternative selection unambiguous.

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