congress_nomination_full_profile

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the tool makes parallel calls to 4 endpoints, that it is a composite/aggregation tool, and that it returns a combined profile. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and potential performance characteristics. It doesn't describe pagination or response format, but for a composite read tool with these annotations, the description adds meaningful context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core value proposition ('COMPLETE presidential nomination profile in ONE call') and the components. The second sentence provides explicit routing guidance. The 'Ideal for' section adds use-case context. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a composite tool that needs to explain its aggregation behavior.

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 composite tool with 2 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what data is aggregated, when to use it, and even suggests a complementary tool (lobbying_search). The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response structure or whether the combined profile has any limitations (e.g., missing data if one endpoint fails), but given the annotations and the tool's straightforward read-only nature, this is a minor omission.

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 both parameters (congress and nomination_number). The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'nomination_number (PN number)' in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'presidential nomination profile' and 'nomination details' implies the parameters identify a specific nomination, but it doesn't add syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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's purpose: 'Get a COMPLETE presidential nomination profile in ONE call' and enumerates the four data components it combines (nomination details, action timeline, committee referrals/activity, hearings). It explicitly names the sibling tools it replaces (congress_nomination_details, congress_nomination_committees, congress_nomination_hearings), making it easy for an agent to distinguish this composite tool from its individual counterparts.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of calling congress_nomination_details + congress_nomination_committees + congress_nomination_hearings individually,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also gives an 'Ideal for' section that describes the use case (tracking judicial and executive nominations from submission through confirmation/rejection) and even suggests cross-referencing with lobbying_search for industry interest, which is a helpful alternative/complementary tool.

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