congress_nomination_committees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool shows committee activities (referral, hearing, discharge), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions. It doesn't describe pagination or response structure, but the annotations hold the safety profile, so 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get committees associated with a nomination'), and the second sentence adds concise clarifying details. Every sentence 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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a clear output focus (committees and their activities), the description is complete enough to select it. It specifies the input parameters implicitly via the context. Missing nuances like response format are not critical given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple scope.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (congress and nomination_number). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get committees associated with a nomination' and clarifies the scope with 'Shows committee activities (referral, hearing, discharge)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like congress_nomination_hearings and congress_nomination_details by stating exactly what kind of data it returns.

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 usage: use when you need committees for a nomination bob. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool. With many similar congress sibling tools, explicit routing would be helpful, but the description at least signals its intended purpose.

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