congress_house_communication_details

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 useful context about the returned content, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, error handling, or what happens when the specified communication is not found. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then efficiently lists the distinguishing return fields. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.

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 detail-retrieval tool with fully documented required parameters and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context about what the tool returns. It does not explain how to obtain the required identifiers or how to handle invalid combinations, but these are minor gaps for a well-scoped lookup endpoint.

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%, with congress, communication_type, and communication_number all described directly in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the action ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('a specific House communication'), and lists the meaningful fields returned (abstract, committees, submitting agency, legal authority). It is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like congress_house_communications, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus congress_house_communications, congress_senate_communication_details, or congress_house_requirement_details. The word 'specific' implies this is a detail lookup, but the description does not state when an agent should choose it or what prior step would provide the required identifiers.

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