congress_committee_print_text

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 covered. The description adds that it returns formatted text and PDF URLs, which is useful but does not disclose pagination, response size, or whether the text is full or partial. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key return details. It earns its place without fluff, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 read-only retrieval tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention whether the response is paginated, how many text versions may exist, or how to handle missing prints. Given the sibling set includes similar text tools, a bit more differentiation would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (congress, chamber, jacket_number). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('text versions for a committee print'), and mentions return content ('formatted text and PDF URLs'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling congress_committee_report_text or congress_committee_print_details. The name itself is fairly descriptive, and the description adds the return format detail.

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 usage: call this when you need text versions of a committee print. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like congress_committee_print_details or congress_committee_report_text. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer from the name and context.

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