openstates_legislators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned fields (legislator names, parties, chambers, districts, contact info) and filter options. It does not disclose pagination behavior, but with the schema covering page/limit and annotations covering safety, the added value is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that introduce the action, scope, filters, and return contents. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool searches, the geographic scope, available filters, and the type of data returned. Together with the 100% schema coverage and the read-only annotation, it provides a complete picture for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a small amount of extra semantics by mapping 'jurisdiction' to state filter and mentioning 'name' filtering, but the schema already fully documents each parameter. No significant addition beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('state legislators'), and states the scope ('across all 50 states'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'openstates_bills' by focusing on legislators, and 'congress_search_members' by explicitly limiting to state level.

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 by specifying that it searches all 50 states and allows filtering by jurisdiction and name. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternate tools, but the scope is sufficiently clear to avoid misuse.

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