congress_amendment_amendments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that this returns a filtered subset (sub-amendments of a parent), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default limit, or what fields are returned, which would be valuable for a list-type endpoint.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second clarifies the relationship. The key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that it doesn't mention pagination or the limit parameter's behavior, but the schema covers the limit parameter with a default and maximum. An agent can call this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how congress, amendment_type, and amendment_number combine to identify the parent amendment, nor does it clarify the relationship between amendment_type and the parent. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Get sub-amendments to a specific amendment' and further clarifies that it 'Shows amendments that modify the parent amendment.' This distinguishes it from the sibling congress_amendments (which lists amendments) and congress_amendment_details (which gets a single amendment's details).

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 the use case: when you need sub-amendments to a specific parent amendment. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools like congress_amendments and congress_amendment_details makes the distinction reasonably clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating 'Use this instead of congress_amendments when you need amendments that modify a specific parent amendment.'

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