congress_crs_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the qualitative context that CRS reports are 'gold standard' for policy research, which is useful for judging relevance, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether results are sorted by date, whether the date filters are inclusive, or whether the tool returns summaries or full text. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds qualitative context that helps an agent judge relevance. No wasted words, though the qualitative claim is somewhat promotional rather than operational.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, or how the date filters behave. The sibling congress_crs_report_details suggests a detail counterpart, but the description does not clarify the relationship. An agent could call this tool correctly, but it would be guessing about the return shape.

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 already documents all three parameters (limit, toDateTime, fromDateTime). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Congressional Research Service reports and characterizes them as authoritative, nonpartisan analysis on legislative topics. It distinguishes the resource (CRS reports) but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling congress_crs_report_details, which likely retrieves a single report's details. The verb 'Get' is specific enough, and the resource is clear, but the lack of explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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 this is the general entry point for CRS reports, but it does not state when to use this tool versus congress_crs_report_details or other congress_* search tools. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. The context of 'policy research' gives some implied usage, but an agent would have to infer the distinction from the sibling name.

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