congress_committee_details

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operationclient. The description adds context about response contents but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or special result semantics. There is no contradiction with 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?

A single sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists the returned data categories. Every word contributes useful information; there is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the required inputs and major response fields. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state whether this returns data for the current Congress, leaving ambiguity against the 'congress_committee_details_by_congress' sibling. Also, it does not mention how to obtain a valid committee_code, though the schema provides examples.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema: chamber has an enum, and committee_code includes example values. The description merely repeats the parameter names without adding new meaning, so it does not add value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 the verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed information about a specific congressional committee'), and the key identifiers (chamber and committee code). It also enumerates the response contents (history, website, subcommittees, bill/report counts, communications). However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'congress_committee_details_by_congress', so an agent might be uncertain which tool to use when a congress parameter is involved.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites such as how to discover a valid committee_code. The description only implies that chamber and code are needed but does not mention using 'congress_committees' first or the difference from related tools like 'congress_committee_details_by_congress' or 'congress_committee_full_profile'.

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