congress_nomination_hearings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds modest behavioral context by specifying output contents (hearing dates, citations, chambers), but does not discuss pagination, ordering, or response shape. With rich annotations, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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, no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the output fields. Every word 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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description tells the agent what it returns and the inputs it needs. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of dates, citations, and chambers provides a reasonable expectation of the return shape. It stops short of 5 only by omitting practical details like pagination or result limits.

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%: congress is described as 'Congress number' and nomination_number as 'Nomination number'. The description's phrase 'associated with a nomination' reinforces the nomination_number param but adds no new syntax or format details. 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('printed hearings'), and the association to a nomination. It differentiates from siblings like congress_hearings (generic hearings) and congress_nomination_details (nomination metadata) by narrowing scope to hearing records tied to a nomination and listing the displayed fields.

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 when to use it: when you need printed hearings for a given nomination (identified by congress and nomination_number). It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't quite reach 5.

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