Get Committee Detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it fetches detail and member list in parallel. No contradiction. Somewhat brief but annotations cover safety profile.

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 plus a command. Front-loaded with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN'. Every sentence serves a purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 an output schema (nested objects) and rich annotations, the description completes the picture by detailing the data returned (detail and membership) and the next step. Could mention that output includes committee metadata and member list explicitly, but the title and schema imply it.

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 100% with 'Committee ID from committees_search_committees results' in the parameter description. The description reinforces the source of the ID and its use, adding context beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'fetches committee detail and member list'. Distinguishes from siblings like committees_search_committees and committees_search_evidence by specifying it returns metadata and current membership for a given committee_id.

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 states 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a committee_id and want the metadata + current membership.' Also provides follow-up direction: 'AFTER calling, pass committee_id into committees_search_evidence.' This gives both when-to-use and an alternative action.

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