congress_treaty_partitioned_details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety and idempotency behavior. The description adds the concept of partitioned treaties, which is useful for selection, but does not add additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. Since annotations cover the essential behavior, and the description adds only domain context, 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?

The description is two sentences, with the main purpose stated first and a clarifying definition of 'partitioned' second. There is zero waste, and it is concise and well-structured. Every word adds value, making it highly 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?

For a simple tool with three fully-described parameters and complete annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it. It explains the partition concept and the condition for using the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention the alternative tool, but given the clarity of the purpose, that is not a significant gap. It could be slightly more complete by naming the non-partitioned sibling, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 all three parameters (congress, treaty_number, treaty_suffix) are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 the tool 'gets details about a partitioned treaty', specifying the verb and resource. It also explains what a partitioned treaty is (one with a suffix letter), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool congress_treaty_details for regular treaties. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from alternatives.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a treaty has a suffix letter, indicating it is partitioned. It implicitly tells the agent to use this for partitioned treaties and another tool (like congress_treaty_details) for non-partitioned ones. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so it just misses the top score.

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