congress_treaty_partitioned_details

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. However, it adds no information about return format, error handling, or what 'details' include. The description mainly clarifies the resource type rather than disclosing tool behavior beyond the annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a brief clarifying sentence. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to parse.

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 tool has no output schema, the description could have mentioned what details are returned or any edge cases. It is adequate for a simple read tool with well-described required parameters, but could be more complete with additional context about the output or relationship to other treaty tools.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about why suffix is needed (partitioned treaties) but does not provide additional format or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Get details') and specific resource ('partitioned treaty'), and explains what a partitioned treaty is (one with a suffix letter). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_treaty_details, which presumably handles non-partitioned treaties.

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 treaties with suffix letters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives like congress_treaty_details for non-partitioned treaties. The usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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