congress_nomination_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's disclosure of returning all actions (committee referral, hearing, vote, confirmation/rejection) adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradictions, and the description clarifies the scope of data returned.

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 includes key details about actions. No redundant information, and every word adds value.

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 and low complexity (2 params), the description adequately covers returned data (all actions). It omits error handling or prerequisites, but for a lookup tool, this is acceptable. Slightly incomplete for edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with basic descriptions (congress number, nomination number). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, a baseline 3 is appropriate; no improvement needed.

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 detailed information about a presidential nomination, specifically listing the types of actions included (committee referral, hearing, vote, confirmation/rejection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_nomination_committees or congress_nomination_hearings, which focus on subsets.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for a specific nomination but offers no context on when to prefer it over congress_nomination_full_profile or other nomination tools. With many siblings, this omission reduces guidance.

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