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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: results reflect OBSERVED practice in the ingested record, not the reglamento; a missing stage means 'not recorded in the window', not 'doesn't exist'; and window_days bounds the observation. These epistemic caveats materially change how an agent should present results.

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?

Front-loaded: purpose and return shape come first, then usage triggers, then caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the window_days sentence at the end repeats schema guidance and the length is near the upper bound for comfortable scanning.

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 three-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the answer contains, which questions it answers, how far back the observation reaches, and the interpretive limits to pass on to users.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The prose reiterates window_days' default and the widening advice already present in the schema, and never mentions min_updates, which the schema documents on its own. It adds little semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieves a country's legislative process) and enumerates exactly what comes back: chambers, in-use bill types, and an ordered stage sequence with update and distinct-bill counts. It also names the data source (Dapper's tramitación records), which distinguishes it from descriptive/legal-text siblings like get_explainer or get_bill_breakdown.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions ('what happens next', 'how many debates', 'is it bicameral') so the agent knows when to reach for it. Explicitly states what it is NOT for — deadlines, majority thresholds, article numbers — and names the alternative source (the chamber's own reglamento), which is exactly the when-not guidance most definitions lack.

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