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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that diffs are precomputed and that the tool only returns results for bills with multiple versions, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects (though likely read-only) or rate limits. Given the complexity, it adds some behavioral context but lacks detail about response format or potential errors, hence a 3.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the API endpoint, then details how to get the parameters, and finally notes a key limitation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. Only minor issue is that it packs several pieces of info into a single paragraph, but it is still easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema) and no annotations, the description covers the essential steps: how to obtain version IDs and the limitation about multiple versions. It does not describe the output structure in detail, but since there is no output schema, some description of what is returned (unified diff, counts, highlights) is given. This is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though additional error handling details could improve completeness.

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 all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds clarity by explaining how to obtain the `from` and `to` parameters from get_bill, but it does not add much beyond that. Since the schema is already complete, the description adds marginal value, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Compare two versions of a bill's text' with a clear verb and resource, and includes the API endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_bill_text and get_bill_text_history by focusing on diffing two specific versions. The purpose is 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 provides explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Get the two version ids from get_bill with include:["texts"]' and explains how to obtain the required parameters. It also states a constraint: 'only bills that have more than one text version return one', which helps agents decide when this tool is applicable. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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