congress_committee_print_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the core action, such as return format, pagination, or error behavior. It neither contradicts the annotations nor adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them, so a middling score 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, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb ('Get') and resource ('details about a specific committee print') and immediately names the required identifiers. There is zero wasted wording, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only detail lookup with complete parameter coverage and annotations conveying safety, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does and how to identify the resource. The only small gap is that it does not clarify what 'details' include (e.g., metadata only, not text), but given the sibling congress_committee_print_text and the tool name, the distinction is reasonably inferable.

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%, with each parameter already described ('Chamber', 'Congress number', 'Jacket number (e.g., 48144)'). The description restates the parameters in prose but adds little new meaning beyond reinforcing that they are the lookup keys. It provides an example for jacket_number in the schema, and the description itself does not deepen the parameter semantics.

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 the action ('get details'), the resource ('specific committee print'), and the identifiers ('congress, chamber, and jacket number') that define the target. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_committee_prints (which lists prints) and congress_committee_print_text (which retrieves full 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 implies when to use this tool: when you already have the congress, chamber, and jacket number and need details about a committee print. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to congress_committee_print_text for full text or congress_committee_prints for a list. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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