congress_senate_communication_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns specific fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or the full response structure. Given annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and key output fields without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and easy to scan.

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 endpoint with three required parameters, all documented, and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not mention how to obtain the communication_number (e.g., from the list tool) or describe the full response shape, which could be useful. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more context would help.

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%: each parameter has a description (congress, communication_type with enum, communication_number). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, and it does not need to since the schema is already explicit. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific Senate communication and lists the key fields (abstract, committees, congressional record date). It implies a detail-oriented purpose distinct from a list operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling list tool (congress_senate_communications).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the list tool or the house communication detail tool. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a communication number from a prior list call) or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the word 'specific'.

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