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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('bill summaries with mention counts') and the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/trending), giving the agent a clear model of behavior. It omits details like pagination or error handling, but for a read-only, parameter-light tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, followed by usage guidance and return-type info. No wasted words; the structure maximizes clarity per word.

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 simple tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and points to get_bill for further detail. It doesn't mention default values (though schema does) or error behavior, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Slightly more could be said about what 'bill summaries' include, but 'mention counts' clarifies that.

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 schema already documents days, limit, and state. The description adds marginal context (e.g., 'optionally for one state' and 'mention counts'), but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's field descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource ('Bills with the most news coverage') and the operation (retrieval), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by stating its use case ('what's in the news' or 'hot bills right now'). It also names the related tool for detail (get_bill), leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('Use for 'what's in the news' or 'hot bills right now'') and directs the agent to call get_bill for detail, which implies when this tool is not appropriate (when full bill detail is needed). It doesn't enumerate all alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple trending tool this is adequate.

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