congress_amendments

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by stating the returned fields, but it does not mention pagination or potential size of results.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, enum meanings, and return fields with no filler. Every clause 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 list-style read-only endpoint, the description gives sufficient scope, filter semantics, and return-field information even without an output schema. Parameter details are provided by the schema and safety profile by annotations; the main missing element is a pointer to detail or bill-specific amendment tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by expanding the cryptic enum values (hamdt/samdt/suamdt) into House, Senate, and Senate Unnumbered, which directly helps an agent choose the correct filter.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Search/list amendments') and defines the scope by congress and optional amendment type. It names the three amendment type codes and lists returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from detail-oriented siblings even without an explicit comparison.

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 its use case: searching or listing amendments filtered by congress and type, which is clear enough to select it. However, it gives no exclusions or pointers to alternative tools like congress_amendment_details or congress_bill_amendments.

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