congress_committee_full_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it combines 4 endpoints in parallel, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions. Could have mentioned rate limits or caching, but not required.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs. Front-loaded with the main benefit. Every sentence serves a purpose without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (committee details, bills, reports, nominations). It also hints at related tools like congress_member_details for cross-referencing, providing sufficient context for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% and description adds value by providing examples for committee_code (e.g., 'hsba00' for House Financial Services). It also explains the limit parameter's default and max. Good but not extensive.

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 a COMPLETE committee profile in ONE call, combining four endpoints. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'committee profile', and distinguishes from siblings by naming the individual tools it replaces.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of calling congress_committee_details + congress_committee_bills + congress_committee_reports_for_committee + congress_committee_nominations_for_committee individually.' Also gives ideal use cases like understanding jurisdiction and workload.

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