congress_committee_report_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the return content (associated bills, title, issue date, text versions), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like pagination or validation rules, but the annotations lower the bar.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the key return fields. No fluff or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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 detail endpoint with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return payload adequately. It does not explain how to discover report numbers or handle invalid combos, but that is minor given the schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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%: each parameter (congress, report_type, report_number) has a clear description and report_type has an enum. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('committee report'), and the scope ('specific'), listing key return fields (associated bills, title, issue date, text versions). This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like congress_committee_reports and text-only tools like congress_committee_report_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools like congress_committee_reports (for listing) or congress_committee_report_text (for text only), nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. The usage is implied by 'specific' but not directly stated.

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