congress_committee_prints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the behavioral context of listing prints and the distinction from reports, but does not describe pagination, sorting, or default ordering. Since annotations carry the heavy lifting, a 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 that front-loads the primary purpose, immediately clarifies the distinction from committee reports, and adds a relevant example (Rules Committee prints). No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 list tool with full parameter documentation and comprehensive annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its scope. It does not cover return format or pagination, but those are typically inferable from the list nature and the absence of an output schema makes them less critical. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters (limit, chamber, congress, toDateTime, fromDateTime) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states, so it does not exceed the baseline 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 lists committee prints, specifying the resource (committee prints) and the action (list). It distinguishes from committee reports by explicitly saying 'not committee reports,' which separates it from the sibling tool congress_committee_reports. The additional note about Rules Committee prints with bill text adds useful context.

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 by contrasting with committee reports, effectively telling the agent to use this tool for prints rather than reports. However, it does not name an explicit alternative tool or provide conditions for when to choose this over other congress tools, so it's slightly less explicit than a full guideline.

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