congress_amendment_amendments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'get' is consistent. However, the description does not add behavioral details beyond that, such as rate limits, authentication, or whether the returned data includes full amendment details or just summaries. It adequately reflects the expected safe read operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not specify the response format or fields. It mentions 'shows amendments that modify the parent amendment' but does not clarify whether pagination, limits, or ordering apply. The required parameters are well-documented in the schema, but the description could reinforce default behaviors like the limit parameter.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it doesn't explain how to combine parameters or the significance of the amendment_type enum values.

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 tool retrieves sub-amendments to a specific amendment, using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'sub-amendments'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'congress_amendments' by specifying the relationship to a parent amendment.

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 when to use (to get sub-amendments) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or conditions when not to use. There is no guidance on how it differs from 'congress_amendments' or 'congress_amendment_details', which are closely related.

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