congress_nominations

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's primary behavioral contribution is listing the output fields. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or other quirks beyond what is in the schema. The description adds some context but is limited.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant information. 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 list tool with 4 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns. Minor omission: does not explicitly state that it only returns nominations for a given congress (default current), but the schema covers that. Score 4 as it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage tips for the parameters (congress, limit, fromDateTime, toDateTime). Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'presidential nominations to federal offices', and specifies the types of offices (judges, cabinet, ambassadors, agency heads) and output fields (nominee name, position, organization, confirmation status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on details or full profiles.

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 usage for getting a list of nominations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like congress_nomination_details or congress_nomination_full_profile. With many sibling nomination tools, explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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