congress_committee_bills

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 returns bills referred to a committee, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the result includes only current Congress or all Congresses. With annotations covering the core safety traits, 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a prerequisite and a use case. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the prerequisite (committee code lookup) and a use case. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether the tool returns bills from all Congresses or just the current one, which could matter for an agent. But given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor omission.

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 three parameters. The description adds a concrete example of committee_code format ('hsba00' for House Financial Services) in the schema, not in the description. The description itself doesn't add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 bills referred to') and a specific resource ('a specific committee'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_bill_committees (which maps bills to committees) and congress_committee_details (which describes the committee itself). It also names the prerequisite tool (congress_committees) for finding the committee code, adding further differentiation.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use congress_committees to find the committee system code, which is a clear prerequisite. It also provides a use case ('tracking which bills die in committee vs. get reported out'), which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like congress_bill_committees or congress_committee_reports_for_committee, so it falls short of a 5.

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