Search Committee Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains pagination (returns one page, default 20, has_more), caps on free-text titles (max_title_chars) and witness lists (10 per item). 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, no fluff. It is front-loaded with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' for immediate usability. Every sentence adds value: usage condition, behavioral details, and authority statement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (pagination, multiple evidence types, caps), the description covers key aspects: what it returns, pagination loop, and caps. The output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return structure is documented elsewhere. The 'Authoritative source' statement adds useful context. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, with each parameter already having a description. The tool description adds additional context, such as explaining offset usage for pagination and the effect of max_title_chars on title length. This complements the schema well, providing deeper meaning for parameters involved in pagination and output control.

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 starts with 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN you have a committee_id and want the oral and written evidence submitted to it,' clearly specifying the verb (search/return) and resource (committee evidence). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like committees_search_committees (lists committees) and committees_get_committee (details a single committee), so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you have a committee_id and want the oral and written evidence'). It also provides pagination guidance ('re-call with offset=offset+returned while has_more is true'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list and context signals partially cover that.

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