congress_info

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only operation by stating 'Get information'. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the types of data returned (dates, session numbers, chambers). No contradictions or missing disclosures.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence defines the purpose and content, the second gives concrete use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (dates, session numbers, chambers). It covers the core functionality and two primary use cases. It could mention that listing returns recent congresses, but the schema's 'limit' parameter implies that. Overall, complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds value by explaining the kind of information returned (start/end dates, session numbers, chambers), which is not in the schema. This helps an agent understand the expected output beyond parameter inputs.

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 information about congresses and their sessions, including start/end dates, session numbers, and chambers. It also provides specific use cases like looking up when a congress was in session or getting current congress details. This verb+resource specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on bills, committees, etc.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use to look up when a congress was in session, or get current congress details.' It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the presence of many sibling congress tools makes alternatives clear.

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