congress_committee_details_by_congress

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds behavioral context that the tool shows membership data for a specific congress. No contradictions exist. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the scope of data returned (membership for that congress).

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and has zero unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions the output shows membership for that specific congress. However, it does not fully detail the structure of the response (e.g., committee name, chair, members) which would be helpful. For a simple detail tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 tool gets detailed committee information filtered by congress number, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool congress_committee_details which provides all-time details. The verb 'get' and resource 'committee details' are specific.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for membership of a specific congress) versus the sibling tool (all-time details). It does not include explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the alternative is clearly named.

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