congress_house_communications

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 list of communication types and their codes, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether results are limited to a specific congress. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides the type mapping in a compact list. Every sentence earns its place.

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 required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that results are paginated via limit and that congress is optional, but the schema already covers those details. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a list 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, congress, communication_type). The description adds the enum expansion for communication_type, but that is also present in the schema. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so 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 House communications and enumerates the specific types (executive communications, memorials, presidential messages, petitions). It distinguishes itself from related tools like congress_senate_communications and congress_house_communication_details by focusing on the list-level House communications endpoint.

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 usage for listing House communications and provides the type filter values, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like congress_house_communication_details or congress_committee_house_communications. The context signals show many sibling tools, so explicit routing guidance would improve it.

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