congress_treaty_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope of the detail (Senate actions) and the identifiers required (congress, treaty_number), but does not disclose what happens if the treaty is not found or what the response format is. Given the annotations cover safety, the description provides some useful context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the key content. There is no redundancy or filler. It could be slightly longer to include usage guidance, but for its length it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (only 2 parameters, both covered by schema, read-only annotations), the description is fairly complete for an agent to call it correctly. It explains what the output contains (Senate actions). However, it does not mention the output format, error handling, or relationships to other treaty tools, but these are not critical for invocation. A score of 4 is justified as it covers the essential context.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema: 'congress' is described as 'Congress in which the treaty was received' and 'treaty_number' as 'Treaty document number'. The description mentions 'specific treaty' and 'congress' implicitly, but does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific treaty', and enumerates the types of Senate actions included (committee referral, hearings, ratification vote). This distinguishes it from the list tool 'congress_treaties' and the potentially related 'congress_treaty_partitioned_details' and 'congress_treaty_full_profile' siblings, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is specific and clear.

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 implies usage: when you need details about a specific treaty, given a congress and treaty number. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like 'congress_treaty_full_profile' or the partitioned details tools. Since multiple sibling tools exist for treaty details, the guidance is insufficient to direct the agent to the correct one without deeper investigation.

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