congress_house_requirement_matching_communications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds valuable context that the communications are 'agency submissions fulfilling a recurring reporting obligation,' which clarifies the nature of the data beyond the annotation.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core function; the second adds detail. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly more informative about the nature of 'communications.'

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?

With no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the basics but lacks details on pagination, result interpretation, or how this tool relates to other congress tools. Given the wealth of sibling tools, additional context would improve completeness.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (requirement_number and limit), with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning or syntax beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 states the tool retrieves communications matching a specific House requirement, with the added context that these are agency submissions for recurring reporting obligations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_house_communications (all communications) and congress_house_requirement_details (requirement info).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for finding submissions tied to a requirement, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for broader queries. Given the many sibling congress tools, more guidance would be helpful.

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