congress_treaties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns treaty topic, date transmitted, and ratification status, which is useful output context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits (though limit parameter exists), or that it returns a list (implied by 'List'). The added behavioral info is modest beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('List treaties') and follows with the key output fields. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output fields but omits important context like pagination (limit parameter), date filtering semantics (fromDateTime/toDateTime), and the distinction from more detailed treaty tools. It is adequate for a basic list operation but not fully complete given the rich sibling ecosystem.

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%, and each parameter (limit, congress, toDateTime, fromDateTime) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra value.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('treaties submitted to the Senate'), and mentions the key output fields (topic, date transmitted, ratification status). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like congress_treaty_details or congress_treaty_full_profile, which also relate to treaties. It is clear in its core function but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., congress_treaty_details for a single treaty, congress_treaty_full_profile for comprehensive data). The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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