congress_house_requirements

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 that it shows requirement number, frequency, and matching communications count, which hints at the output structure but doesn't go beyond that. It doesn't disclose any pagination, sorting, or auth requirements. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then mentions the displayed fields. There is no wasted text, and it's easy to parse. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main purpose and some output fields. It doesn't mention any additional filters or sorting options, but given the schema only has 'limit', that's not necessary. It gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 only parameter, 'limit', has a schema description ('Max results (default: 20)') that fully documents its purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, 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 states a clear purpose: 'List House requirements — recurring reporting obligations from executive agencies to Congress.' It also specifies the fields shown (requirement number, frequency, matching communications count). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like congress_house_requirement_details, but the term 'List' implies it's an overview, while 'details' would be for a specific item. Overall, it's specific and distinguishable enough.

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 related ones like congress_house_requirement_details or congress_house_requirement_matching_communications. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer that this is for listing requirements, but no explicit 'use this for X, that for Y' guidance is given.

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