House transaction-report filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses that the payload is a filing record plus a PDF link, not the transactions, and explains why (scanned-image PDFs). It omits any mention of pagination or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the most decision-relevant fact (filing record only, not transactions) is front-loaded before the sibling hand-off. Each 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by defining what is returned and, critically, what is not. Only the un-described `sinceDays` filter and any result-volume behavior are left unaddressed.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning; the schema already explains that `year` is the filing index year and `member` is loosely matched. Baseline 3 is appropriate, though `sinceDays` remains undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Periodic transaction reports filed by House members') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `congress_trades` by scope and content type. An agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('For actual transaction detail use `congress_trades`'), and states the access precondition ('No credential needed'). Routing is unambiguous.

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