congress_committee_details_by_congress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail about the return content ('Shows membership for that specific congress') but does not disclose additional traits like response format, pagination, or error conditions. Given the annotation coverage, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the primary function first and then contrasts with a sibling. No redundant phrases or filler—every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and differentiation.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly: it names the resource, the filtering criteria, and the distinction from the sibling tool. There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what is returned; it does mention 'detailed information' and 'membership.' While it could specify the exact fields or response shape, the annotations and the simplicity of the tool make this reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (chamber, congress, committee_code), each with a brief but adequate explanation. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the description has little obligation to expand, so a baseline 3 is justified.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a committee filtered by a specific congress number.' It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool congress_committee_details, which provides all-time details. This distinguishes the tool's purpose unambiguously.

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 versus congress_committee_details by stating 'Shows membership for that specific congress vs. all-time details from congress_committee_details.' It provides clear context for selection but stops short of an explicit 'use this when...' directive. This is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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