congress_treaty_full_profile

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral transparency about the composite implementation: it runs '3 endpoints in parallel' and merges them into one response. It does not detail return shape or pagination, but the parallel/composite behavior is useful beyond the 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?

Two short paragraphs with no filler. The core value proposition ('complete profile', 'ONE call', '3 endpoints in parallel') is front-loaded, and the alternative routing follows immediately. The use-case sentence earns its place.

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 composite tool with only two well-documented parameters, the definition explains what the caller gets (details, timeline, committee assignments) and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the component enumeration partially compensates; a fuller return-shape description would improve it further, but nothing required for selection and invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with both congress and treaty_number carrying meaningful descriptions ('Congress in which the treaty was received' and 'Treaty document number'). The tool description adds no further parameter guidance, so it correctly relies on the schema; the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') with a clear scope ('COMPLETE treaty profile in ONE call') and enumerates the three combined components: treaty details, full action timeline, and committee assignments. This directly distinguishes it from individual treaty endpoints and marks it as a composite tool.

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?

It names the exact alternative calls it replaces ('congress_treaty_details + congress_treaty_committees') and instructs the agent to use this instead. The 'Ideal for' line adds contextual targeting (international agreement research and Senate Foreign Relations Committee tracking), giving clear selection guidance.

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