congress_nomination_nominees

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context about the ordinal requirement and prerequisite flow, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some value but not deep behavioral detail.

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 zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise explanation of the ordinal nuance and a clear pointer to the prerequisite tool. 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 list-retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and a schema that documents all parameters, the description adequately explains the purpose, the key concept (ordinal), and the correct usage flow. It lacks details on return fields or output structure, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of ordinal ('Some nominations contain multiple positions') and the need to use details first, but it doesn't add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the list of nominees for a specific position within a nomination.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the ordinal concept and pointing to congress_nomination_details for prerequisite info, which differentiates it from other nomination-related tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use congress_nomination_details first to see the ordinal numbers,' providing a clear when-to-use prerequisite. It also explains that some nominations have multiple ordinals, implying why this tool is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the prerequisite.

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