Get Politician Committees

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the type of data returned but does not discuss potential limits, data freshness, or authorization details. Acceptable but not exceptional.

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: first defines output, second gives usage guidance and prerequisite. No wasted 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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists) and sibling tools, the description provides enough context to use the tool effectively. Could mention if assignments are current or historical, but not required.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'sen-nancy-pelosi') and links the slug to the prerequisite tool. This exceeds the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves committee assignments for a politician, listing explicit fields (committee name, chamber, role, subcommittees). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_politician_detail or get_politician_roles.

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?

Description advises to use for correlating trading activity with oversight, and clearly states the prerequisite: use get_politicians first to obtain the slug. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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