congress_nominations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields (nominee name, position, organization, confirmation status), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination, default limits, or whether only pending nominations are included. Given the annotations already carry the core behavioral traits, this is a 3.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the output fields are stated succinctly. It is concise and well-structured, earning a 5.

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 description is sufficient for a list tool with clear parameters. It names the entity, scope, and output fields. It does not mention how to access details for a specific nomination, but that is covered by sibling tools. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description states the fields. The only gap is lack of guidance on distinguishing from other list tools, but that falls under usage guidelines.

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 four parameters (limit, congress, toDateTime, fromDateTime) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific context or guidance. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('presidential nominations to federal offices') with concrete examples (judges, cabinet, ambassadors, agency heads). It also states the output fields (nominee name, position, organization, confirmation status), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like congress_nomination_details, but the list-vs-detail distinction is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as congress_nomination_details or congress_nomination_full_profile. There is no mention of filtering by congress or date, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Agents must rely on the tool name and schema to infer usage.

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