congress_committee_nominations_for_committee

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

Description adds context that tool returns nominations referred to a committee, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like scope (all congresses?), response structure, or authorization needs. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description does not contradict nor significantly enhance beyond suggesting judiciary/agency head usage.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a usage example. No unnecessary words, efficient and clear.

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 the tool's low complexity, clear schema, and readOnly annotation, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and suggests a use case. However, it could benefit from mentioning the response format or that it returns nomination objects, but this is not critical for selection.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (chamber, committee_code, limit). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get nominations referred to a specific committee' and resource (nominations by committee). Adds context about tracking judicial or agency head nominations. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like congress_nominations or congress_nomination_details by focusing on committee-filtered results.

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 states usefulness for tracking nominations before a specific committee, implying when to use. However, does not explicitly exclude usage or compare to alternatives like congress_nominations (which lists all nominations). Provides clear but not exhaustive guidance.

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