congress_committee_reports_for_committee

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate this. It adds that the tool returns formal committee reports, which provides useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or empty result handling, which is acceptable given the annotations but could be richer.

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 very concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value without extraneous words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description only vaguely mentions what is returned ('formal committee reports'). It does not describe the output structure, fields, pagination, or ordering. Given the simplicity of a list tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter details beyond what is already in the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline score 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 the tool's function: 'Get reports published by a specific committee.' It specifies that these are formal committee reports accompanying legislation and directs users to a related tool for finding committee codes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 mentioning a prerequisite tool ('use congress_committees to find the committee system code'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus other committee report tools (e.g., congress_committee_reports or congress_committee_report_details), though the scope is implied.

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