congress_committee_report_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the tool returns formatted text and PDF URLs, which is useful. No contradictory behavior is disclosed. However, it does not describe pagination, response size, or potential limitations, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a crucial detail about the return value. It is compact and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return values, and it does indicate 'formatted text and PDF URLs'. For a simple retrieval tool with well-documented parametersainer, this is nearly complete. A slight gap is not specifying how text versions are structured (e.g., HTML vs plain text), but the essentials are present.

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% for all three parameters (congress, report_type, report_number), each with clear descriptions including the enum meanings for report_type. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level info, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Get text versions') and the resource ('a committee report'), and specifies the output ('formatted text and PDF URLs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_committee_report_details, which likely focuses on metadata, and congress_committee_reports, which likely lists reports.

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: use when you need the full text or PDF link of a known committee report. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. Given the tool's clear purpose, the usage context is inferable but not stated.

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