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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses a real behavioral trait: only states with loaded codes resolve to text, ungranted sections come back as bare citations, and resolved sections carry resolved:true with text. No pagination or volume/rate context, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with what is returned, then usage, then provenance, then the coverage caveat. Four dense sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical endpoint and nested caveats make it slightly heavy for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Covers provenance, partial-coverage behavior, and the shape of returned section links, which is important since there is no output schema. Error/empty-result behavior and pagination are unaddressed, so not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single bill_id parameter is already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the provenance hint (from search_bills), which is useful but marginal.

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 resource (sections of existing law a bill amends/creates/repeals/cites) plus the endpoint, and the classification dimension. It is clearly distinguishable from get_statute, search_statutes, and get_measure_statutes by being bill-keyed and change-classified.

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?

Explicit trigger phrase ('Use for what current law does this bill change') and an acquisition hint ('Get bill_id from search_bills') plus a dependency pointer to list_statute_coverage. It does not, however, explicitly route away from adjacent siblings like get_measure_statutes or search_statutes for the same question.

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