congress_amendments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the read-only nature. The description adds the return fields (number, type, sponsor, purpose, status), providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema. No mention of pagination or limits, but that is covered by the input schema.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose, key parameters, and return fields without any redundant or verbose language. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

While the description covers the core functionality, it omits mentioning optional parameters like limit, fromDateTime, and toDateTime, which are defined in the schema. An agent relying solely on the description might not be aware of the date filtering or result limits. The description could be more comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly listing the abbreviation meanings for amendment_type (hamdt, samdt, suamdt), which is not in the schema descriptions. This helps the agent understand the parameter's semantics.

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 searches/lists amendments by congress and optional type, and lists the returned fields (number, type, sponsor, purpose, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_amendment_details that focus on individual amendments.

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 explains when to use the tool (for listing amendments) and provides examples of type values (hamdt, samdt, suamdt). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies those distinctions.

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