congress_treaty_committees

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Get committees,' indicating a read operation. The typical committee hint adds minor context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or rate limits. The annotation already covers safety, so a score of 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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that directly convey the main purpose. No extraneous information. It is well front-loaded and easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple lookup, it lacks details about the return format or structure. Given that there is no output schema, the description could hint at what fields or data to expect. The context is partially complete but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Both parameters have descriptive text in the schema (congress, treaty_number). The description reinforces their purpose but adds no new semantic details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 committees associated with a treaty, and mentions a typical committee (Senate Foreign Relations Committee). It effectively communicates the specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like congress_committee_details, but the context implies distinct functionality.

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, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. It only hints at a typical committee but does not compare to other committee-related tools or specify prerequisites. This lack of context may lead to improper selection.

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