congress_nomination_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by naming the action stages returned, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or what happens when a nomination has no recorded actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and packs the relevant action taxonomy into a parenthetical. No filler, no repeated annotation information.

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?

The two parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description states what the tool returns. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape would improve completeness, but the low parameter complexity and rich annotations make this sufficient for an agent to invoke 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%, with 'Congress number' and 'Nomination number (PN number)' already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline for fully covered schema parameters.

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 detailed information') and a concrete resource ('specific presidential nomination'), then enumerates the action types covered (committee referral, hearing, vote, confirmation/rejection). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like congress_nominations and narrower tools like congress_nomination_hearings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as congress_nomination_full_profile, congress_nomination_nominees, or congress_nomination_committees. The phrase 'specific presidential nomination' implies a detail lookup but provides no selection conditions or exclusions.

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