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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the data source ('primary-sourced landmark registry'), licensing ('CC BY 4.0'), and disclaimers ('not legal advice'), which enhance transparency without contradicting 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 very concise, using two sentences (effectively one with a dash) to convey purpose, data source, licensing, and disclaimers. It front-loads the key action and is free of 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists landmark bills, explains their use for get_bill, specifies the data source, licensing, and legal disclaimer. Combined with thorough annotations, it fully equips an AI 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the output contains 'named, name-searchable AI laws' with 'valid slugs for get_bill,' giving the agent context on what the result will contain.

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 tool lists curated landmark AI bills, specifying they are 'the named, name-searchable AI laws (valid slugs for get_bill).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ai_laws, which likely lists all AI laws, by emphasizing the 'landmark' subset and direct usefulness for get_bill.

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 implies usage for retrieving valid slugs for get_bill but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_ai_laws or state when not to use this tool. It mentions the data is 'free at every tier' and 'informational only,' but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between sibling tools.

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