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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains classification by touch type, the presence of current section text, and the resolution rule (resolved:true plus text only when the state's code is loaded, otherwise a bare citation). This is exactly the kind of return-behavior and coverage caveat an agent needs.

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, then usage, then coverage caveats, in three dense sentences with no filler. Every clause contributes operational information.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how resolution works, and where the parameter comes from. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single bill_id parameter is already documented as a numeric id from a search result. The description's 'get bill_id from search_bills' largely restates that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: sections of existing law that a bill amends, creates, repeals or cites, plus the API route. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_bill, get_bill_text and get_measure_statutes (the ballot-measure analogue) without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger phrase ('what current law does this bill change') and a concrete prerequisite ('get bill_id from search_bills'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_measure_statutes or get_statute, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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