congress_house_requirement_matching_communications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the results are 'agency submissions fulfilling a recurring reporting obligation,' which provides context about the nature of the data but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or response format. Since annotations cover the critical safety aspects, the description adds modest value beyond them, earning a middle score.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It effectively communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 filtered-list tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns (communications matching a requirement) and the nature of those communications. While it doesn't detail the response format or pagination, these are likely standard for similar tools and the schema covers the limit parameter. The description is adequate for an agent to make a correct call, though it could be slightly richer about the return structure.

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% description coverage: both 'requirement_number' and 'limit' have explicit descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with additional details, so it stays at 3.

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's purpose: retrieving communications that match a specific House requirement. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('communications') and adds context that these are agency submissions for a recurring reporting obligation. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like congress_house_communications or congress_house_requirement_details, the phrase 'matching a specific House requirement' implies a filtering function that is distinct. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 the usage scenario: you need a requirement number to fetch matching communications. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you have a requirement number versus browsing all communications). There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit. This is adequate but not strongly prescriptive.

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