govinfo_cbo_reports

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 context about the content type (CBO reports, distributional analysis by income group), which is useful but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, result format, or whether the search covers all CBO reports or only cost estimates. No contradiction 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds a distinctive content detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly more detail could be added about result format, but the description is appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify whether results include full report text, links, or metadata, and it doesn't distinguish itself from govinfo_search or congress_crs_reports. Given the large sibling list with many similar search tools, a bit more context about what makes this tool unique would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (query and page_size). The description adds example query values ('Tax Cuts and Jobs Act', 'reconciliation') which gives semantic guidance beyond the schema's generic 'bill name or topic' description. However, this is marginal value; the schema already carries the main burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Congressional Budget Office reports published through GovInfo'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also adds a distinctive detail about CBO scoring tax bills with distributional analysis, which helps differentiate it from generic govinfo_search. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like govinfo_search or congress_crs_reports, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 context by specifying the resource (CBO reports) and giving example queries ('Tax Cuts and Jobs Act', 'reconciliation'), which suggests when an agent would use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like govinfo_search or congress_crs_reports, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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