congress_amendment_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns version types and format URLs, which is useful behavioral context, but does not detail response structure, pagination, or error behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and result types, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and output. It does not specify exact response formatting, but without an output schema, the agent can rely on the described 'version types and format URLs'. The lack of pagination or error handling is a minor gap for such a focused 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including the congress range and amendment_type enum. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., it repeats the 117th Congress constraint). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 it retrieves text versions for a specific amendment, specifying the resource and the return contents (version types and format URLs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like congress_amendment_details or congress_amendment_cosponsors, though the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer its scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a congress range constraint but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for similar queries. An agent would have to infer from the name and sibling list that this is the amendment-text-specific tool.

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