congress_committees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results include committee name, system code, and chamber, but says nothing about pagination behavior or defaults beyond what the schema provides. This meets the lower bar for tools with annotations, though richer details would be welcome.

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 fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, filters and output fields are stated in a compact second sentence. 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 simple list tool with safe annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential return fields and filters. It does not explain default congress behavior or result ordering, but the schema provides the default for congress, and the tool's simplicity makes it unlikely an agent would need more.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description ('Filter by congress number and/or chamber') largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions without adding semantic nuance. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('congressional committees'), with explicit filter dimensions (congress number, chamber) and return fields. Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling committee tools (e.g., congress_committee_details, congress_committee_bills) by focusing on the simple list of committees.

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 says it lists committees and can be filtered by congress/chamber, giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the narrow scope makes confusion unlikely among the many sibling congress tools.

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