congress_hearings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result limits beyond the limit parameter, or any potential constraints). Since annotations carry the burden, the description adds minimal value.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. No wasted words, though the third sentence about hearing definitions is slightly extraneous for tool usage.

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 no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it could mention expected response format (e.g., array of hearings) or default limit behavior. Given the complexity and context signals, it falls short of fully comprehensive.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description echoes the filtering parameters but does not add deeper meaning (e.g., format requirements for congress number, default behavior of 'limit'). Baseline 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 lists congressional hearings and specifies filtering by congress and chamber. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like congress_hearing_details (which focuses on a single hearing) and congress_committee_meetings (which covers meetings broader than hearings).

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 mentions filtering options but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as congress_hearing_details or congress_committee_meetings. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given.

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