congress_committee_report_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only action ('Get detailed information'). The description adds useful behavioral context about the content (associated bills, title, etc.) without contradicting annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits) are provided, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output fields. Every word earns its place.

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?

All three required parameters are covered by schema descriptions. The description mentions key response elements (bills, title, issue date, text versions), which gives a good idea of the output. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the response structure or error behavior. For a simple lookup tool, this is mostly adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond listing the fields in the response. For example, it doesn't explain how parameters map to those fields. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 detailed information about a specific committee report, listing specific fields (associated bills, title, issue date, text versions). This differentiates it from sibling tools like congress_committee_reports (list) and congress_committee_report_text (just 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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