congress_treaty_partitioned_actions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral transparency by enumerating the specific actions returned (committee referral, hearings, ratification votes), which is helpful context beyond the schema. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second outlines what actions are included. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key verb 'Get' and resource 'actions on a partitioned treaty'.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the action types returned. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of objects with fields), which would add completeness. Still, it covers the essential context for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 all four parameters. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., treaty_suffix is described as 'Treaty partition letter'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves actions for a partitioned treaty (with a suffix letter), specifying the types of actions (committee referral, hearings, ratification votes). This distinguishes it from other treaty tools that handle full treaties or details.

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 a treaty has a suffix letter, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools (e.g., congress_treaty_details for non-partitioned treaties) or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is inferred but not explicit.

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