Committee seats and outside interests

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so credit goes to added context: the data provenance (most recent annual financial disclosure), the covered parties (self, spouse, child), and the Senate-only limitation. No auth, rate-limit, or freshness caveats are disclosed.

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 dense sentences with the core resource declaration front-loaded and the scope limitation trailing. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 carries the burden and does so: it enumerates the returned dimensions (committees, boards, household payers) and states the source and boundary. An agent knows what it will get and what it won't.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents 'member' with the loose-match example 'Tommy Tuberville'. The description adds no matching syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: a senator's committee assignments, outside positions, board seats, and household employers read from their annual disclosure. It explicitly scopes to the Senate, which cleanly separates it from congress_house_filings and adjacent siblings like congress_trades.

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?

Frames when this is the right tool: the 'conflict-of-interest picture behind a trade' tells the agent it complements congress_trades. The 'Senate only; House annual disclosures are scanned PDFs' line signals the coverage boundary, but it does not name the sibling to use instead for House members.

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