congress_house_communications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the types of communications listed but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or response structure. No contradictions with 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, front-loaded with purpose and type enumeration. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what is listed and the possible types. However, it could mention that the tool returns a list of communication summaries and note the absence of committee-level filtering (which is handled by a sibling tool).

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (congress, communication_type, limit). The description adds context beyond the schema by summarizing the communication types and indicating that these are communications 'referred to House committees', which is not explicit in the schema. This helps an agent understand the scope of the tool.

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 it lists House communications with specific types, using a specific verb 'List' and resource 'House communications'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like congress_committee_house_communications or congress_house_communication_details, which may confuse an agent on which to use.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., congress_committee_house_communications for committee-specific listings, or congress_house_communication_details for individual communication details). An agent is left to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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