congress_crs_report_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (summary, authors, topics, related legislation, format links), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention potential error cases or pagination, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key output. Every word contributes to clarity; there is no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates both the action and the expected result.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the return fields so an agent knows what to expect. It doesn't mention edge cases like nonexistent report numbers, but given the simplicity and the annotations, this is not a critical gap.

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 parameter report_number is well documented with examples. The description mentions 'report number/ID' but doesn't add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already provides full parameter documentation.

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 key identifier 'report number/ID'. It also enumerates the returned content (summary, authors, topics, related legislation, format links), which distinguishes it from the sibling congress_crs_reports (likely a list tool) and other detail 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 clearly implies that this tool is used when you have a specific report number, which is a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like congress_crs_reports for finding numbers, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear.

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