congress_treaty_partitioned_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds content about what actions are shown. It does not disclose pagination, default limits, or any ordering behavior, but these are minor for a read-only list tool. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes specific details (committee referral, hearings, ratification votes) without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and the kind of data returned. It could mention the required parameters or the distinction from partitioned details, but the current description is enough to understand usage in most cases.

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 4 parameters with 100% coverage, including treaty_suffix as 'Treaty partition letter (e.g., 'A', 'B')'. The description echoes this by referring to 'suffix letter' but adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline 3 is correct when schema covers all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get actions') and clearly identifies the resource: a partitioned treaty (one with a suffix letter). It also lists the specific content returned (committee referral, hearings, ratification votes), which distinguishes it from related treaty tools like congress_treaty_details or congress_treaty_partitioned_details.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for treaties with a suffix letter (partitions). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the parenthetical clarification and content listing make the intended use obvious. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with non-partitioned treaty tools.

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