congress_bound_congressional_record

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 and the description is consistent with it (no contradiction). The description adds only content context ('permanent, final publication') rather than behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, the default/cap on results (limit defaults to 20, max 250), or the fact that all filter parameters are optional. Some behavioral transparency is lost, though annotations carry much of the burden.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads the purpose and defining trait ('permanent, final publication'), the second states the filtering capability. Every phrase earns its place and the key differentiator is placed early.

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 filter/list tool with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the description is mostly adequate. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation (bound vs. daily Congressional Record) and no mention of result limiting or pagination. Since no output schema exists, the description could do slightly more to set expectations about what is returned, but the core calling information is present.

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%, with all four parameters (day, year, limit, month) already documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by year, month, and day' adds little beyond what the schema states, and notably omits the limit parameter entirely. It provides no added semantics such as required combinations or format details, so it sits at the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bound Congressional Record issues'), and adds a clarifying phrase 'the permanent, final publication of proceedings' that distinguishes it from the daily Congressional Record sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling (congress_daily_congressional_record) as the thing it is not, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring the contrast rather than being told.

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 'permanent, final publication' phrasing implies this tool is for the bound version rather than the daily one, giving some usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to guidance and no named alternatives, which matters given direct siblings congress_congressional_record and congress_daily_congressional_record exist in the toolset. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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