congress_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns session dates, numbers, and chambers—useful but not behavioral. It doesn't mention pagination limits or the 'omit congress to list recent congresses' behavior, which the schema already documents. With annotations covering 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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage context follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters fully described in the schema and safety carried by annotations, the description covers the common use cases — looking up session dates and getting current congress. It doesn't need to repeat schema details or output format, and no critical information is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, current, congress) with descriptions. The description only reiterates that 'current congress details' can be obtained, which maps to the 'current' parameter. No additional semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('congresses and their sessions'), then lists the data fields ('start/end dates, session numbers, and chambers'). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling congress tools like congress_search_bills or congress_member_details, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without inspecting the schema.

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 gives clear context: 'Use to look up when a congress was in session, or get current congress details.' This tells an agent when to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool covers the same functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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