congress_committee_bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's non-destructive nature is known. The description adds context about tracking bill outcomes but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination or potential rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and free of fluff. Every part contributes meaningfully.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description provides enough context for basic use. It could mention return format (e.g., list of bills), but the purpose and input are clear.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the existing parameter descriptions. It mentions an example committee code that already appears in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get bills referred to a specific committee', a specific verb-resource combo. It distinguishes from sibling tools like congress_member_bills by focusing on committee referrals. The title 'Congress: Committee Bills' further reinforces this.

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 advises using congress_committees to find the committee system code, providing helpful prerequisite guidance. It also suggests the tool's utility for tracking bill outcomes, implying when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives for cases where filtering by member or other criteria is needed.

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