uw_congress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds no behavioral beyond listing actions. No additional context on data freshness, rate limits, or authorization.

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?

Description is short with clear list. Slightly inconsistent punctuation in bullet points (colons and parentheses), but overall efficient.

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 tool with explicit actions, description is adequate. However, missing output schema and lack of parameters in schema leave ambiguity on how to invoke actions. The mention of a required parameter without schema support is a gap.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, but description mentions 'congress_trader' requires a name. This contradicts schema and could mislead agents. Schema coverage is 100% (no params), so description should not introduce undocumented 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?

Description clearly states purpose: access congress trading data. Lists three actions. However, lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like uw_politicians, relying on name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists actions but does not provide context for choosing this tool over other uw_ tools.

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