US Congressional Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description confirms it's a search operation and adds that it returns specific fields. No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed. Since the description adds modest context, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose ('Search current and historical members...') and efficiently list filters and return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity and the presence of a rich input schema and output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers the tool's purpose, available filters, and the nature of results. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description briefly mentions filtering by state, chamber, and Congress number, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage baseline is 3, so this score is correct.

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 clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'current and historical members of the US Congress'. It lists specific filters (state, chamber, Congress number) and explicitly mentions return fields (name, party, state, district, bioguide ID). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'congress.legislation.bills' which deals with bills.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to search members with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear. A score of 4 is appropriate as it provides clear context without exclusions.

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