congress_treaty_full_profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it combines three endpoints in parallel. No other behavioral traits (e.g., response size, rate limits) are disclosed. Bar is lower due to annotations, so 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key benefit and clear structure. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what it returns (details, timeline, committees). For a composite tool, it gives a sufficient overview. Could be improved by noting the response format, but overall complete enough.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter ('Congress in which the treaty was received', 'Treaty document number'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it gets a 'COMPLETE treaty profile' combining treaty details, action timeline, and committee assignments. It distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools like congress_treaty_details and congress_treaty_committees by offering a composite endpoint.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool instead of calling the two individual endpoints. Provides ideal use cases ('International agreement research and Senate Foreign Relations Committee tracking'). Does not mention when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.

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