Search Congress Members

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the burden — and it does: it discloses the two-phase strict-then-broad matching algorithm, that it requires every query word in the first pass, that aliases like 'Dan Crenshaw' resolve to the roster name, and what the response contains (position, seat, latest-term party). It omits pagination/result-count behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, none filler, with the core purpose and matching rules front-loaded ahead of the downstream routing hint. The middle sentences are dense, but every one carries information the schema does not.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, listing position, seat, and current party with a stated source (latest term) plus the exact Name field needed for chaining. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything required to call and use this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: the multi-word AND-then-OR broadening rule for `query` and the alias-resolution behavior are not expressed anywhere in the schema. It says nothing additional about the `position` or `maxResults` filters, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search the tracked congressional roster by name') and is immediately distinguishable from the many GetCongressionalTrades/GetMemberTrades siblings that retrieve trade data rather than resolve identities. It even states the matching policy up front.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'pass the returned exact Name to GetMemberTrades or GetMemberNetWorth', which tells the agent this is the lookup step before those tools. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over adjacent search tools like SearchInsiders or SearchInstitutions, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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