congress_committee_print_details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get details' is consistent. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as disclosure of required permissions or specifics about the returned data. Given annotations, a score of 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 sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and required identifiers.

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 does not mention what kind of 'details' are returned (e.g., metadata, full text). Since there is no output schema, more context would be beneficial. However, for a simple detail retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description merely repeats the parameter names without adding further context (e.g., format or constraints). Thus baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves details about a specific committee print, using three identifiers (congress, chamber, jacket number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_committee_prints (which lists prints) and congress_committee_print_text (which retrieves text).

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use this over congress_committee_prints or congress_committee_print_text). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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