congress_senate_communication_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond listing example fields. It does not disclose error handling, response format, or any other behavioral traits. However, it does not contradict annotations, and the described behavior aligns with a read-only retrieval.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Senate communication'). It lists key fields concisely without extraneous words, making it efficient for an agent to process.

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 detail retrieval tool with three required parameters, the description provides a good overview of what it does and what information (abstract, committees, record date) it returns. It lacks mention of error cases or response format, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, it is largely sufficient.

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%, meaning the input schema already describes all three parameters (congress, communication_type, communication_number). The description adds no additional meaning or context to these parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not improve understanding.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific Senate communication, listing key fields (abstract, committees, congressional record date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like congress_senate_communications (which lists communications) and congress_house_communication_details (different chamber), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it is implied that this is for details on a single communication after a search (like congress_senate_communications), no direct guidance is provided. The name helps, but explicit usage instructions are missing.

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