congress_house_requirement_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by listing the content fields, but it does not disclose error behavior, pagination (unlikely for a single object), or any special constraints beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Get detailed information') and immediately lists key content. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and clear.

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 detail tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content. It could mention that the requirement_number typically comes from congress_house_requirements, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety.

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 provides a description for the single parameter (requirement_number), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as where to obtain it or how it maps to the data. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific House requirement and lists the included aspects (legal authority, frequency, nature, matching communications count). It is specific about the resource and purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like congress_house_requirements or congress_house_requirement_matching_communications.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as obtaining the requirement number from congress_house_requirements, nor does it differentiate from the matching communications tool. Usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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