congress_treaties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that output includes topic, date transmitted, and ratification status, which is helpful but does not disclose other behaviors like default limit, pagination, or ordering. Score is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 14 words). It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with expected output. Every word adds value with zero redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key output fields. However, it omits default behavior (e.g., default congress and limit) and does not explain what happens when no parameters are provided. Still, it is fairly complete for an experienced agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and no extra param info is provided.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'treaties submitted to the Senate'. It clearly states the output fields (topic, date transmitted, ratification status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_treaty_details which focus on individual treaty information.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., congress_treaty_details for detailed information). It neither states prerequisites nor conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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