congress_committee_reports_for_committee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the type of content (formal committee reports accompanying legislation), which is useful. However, it does not describe pagination, return format, or any edge-case behavior. Given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate for the incremental value added.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary hint about committee code is concise and actionable. 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?

For a filtered list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the scope, the required input, and where to find the committee code. It does not describe return fields or pagination, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a list endpoint, this is not a critical gap. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds meaning to committee_code by pointing to congress_committees for finding the code, and implies chamber and committee_code are needed. It doesn't add anything about limit, fromDateTime, or toDateTime beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct given full 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('reports published by a specific committee'), and clarifies the nature of these reports ('formal committee reports accompanying legislation'). This clearly distinguishes it from other committee-related tools like prints, meetings, or general committee reports. The mention of 'specific committee' and the committee code requirement sets it apart from congress_committee_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 provides clear context by indicating the tool is for a specific committee and directs the agent to use congress_committees to find the committee system code. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like the general congress_committee_reports, but the name and context make the intended use clear. This is more than implied guidance, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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