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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: term limit ('Up to 10 terms'), output shape ('Returns bill summaries plus pagination'), and corpus scope ('Corpus is 2026-forward only'). It also mentions the HTTP method and endpoint. While it doesn't cover error handling or auth, the essential behaviors are transparent.

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 (about 70 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, constraints, and output in a logical order with no redundant sentences.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: output format (summary + pagination), term limit, and temporal scope. It also mentions the endpoint. It doesn't explicitly state behavior for no results or exceeding the term limit, but these are edge cases not essential for calling the tool correctly. Overall, it is complete enough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., keywords 'Terms that must all match'). The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, except a concrete example of keyword usage. The description does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Keyword search where EVERY term must appear (GET /v1/search/bills)'. It clearly differentiates from siblings by specifying the use case ('specific words that all have to be present') and gives an example. This distinguishes it from semantic_search_bills and search_bills without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use when the user gives specific words that all have to be present'. It also names alternatives and their conditions: 'Prefer semantic_search_bills for questions and search_bills for structured filters'. This is direct guidance on tool selection.

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