congress_bill_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 tool is critical for tracking bill modifications, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or response shape, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core function is front-loaded, the data fields are listed, and the use case is given in a compact example. Every sentence 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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, and why it matters. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination or the limit parameter's role, but the schema already documents limit with a default and maximum, so this is adequately covered.

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 adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 amendments for a specific bill, listing the key data fields (sponsors, purposes, status). It also provides a concrete use case ('gutted and replaced') that distinguishes it from generic bill-related tools. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'amendments filed on a specific bill' is specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool: when tracking how a bill is modified, especially substantive changes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like congress_amendments or congress_bill_actions, but the context of 'specific bill' and the example of tracking modifications gives clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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