congress_crs_report_details

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation and correctly describes a read-only operation. However, beyond that, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error states. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description adds limited behavioral context.

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 long with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists returned attributes efficiently.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, presence of readOnlyHint annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what is returned, though it could mention what happens if the report number is invalid or not found.

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 describes the single parameter 'report_number' with 100% coverage. The description adds examples ('R47175', 'RL33110', 'IF12345') which provide useful context beyond the schema's description.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed information about a specific CRS report', and the scope 'by report number/ID'. It also lists what is returned (full summary, authors, topics, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'congress_crs_reports' which likely list 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 use when you have a specific report number but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The sibling 'congress_crs_reports' could be used for listing, but no direct guidance is provided.

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