Trades by Congress Member

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: results are sorted newest first, the default time window is one year, and specific fields are returned. It does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or output limits, but for a read-only query with rich schema documentation this is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool and scope, the second lists returned data because there is no output schema, and the third routes to alternatives. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (tickers, dates, amount ranges, asset, party). It covers default date range, ordering, and sibling routing, while the fully documented schema handles pagination and parameter details. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides for memberName, ticker, dates, offset, maxResults, or transactionType. 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a congress member's disclosed securities transactions') and adds scope details (newest first, last year by default). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling GetCongressionalTrades, which covers all members in one ticker, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It names the two relevant alternatives and their conditions: SearchCongressMembers to find the exact member name and GetCongressionalTrades for all members' transactions in one ticker. The implied when-to-use is clear from the first sentence: retrieve one member's transactions.

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