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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the HTTP method, AND-combination semantics, direct bill-number matching in q, pagination, the 2026-forward corpus limitation, and the full status_id mapping. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only GET search tool the key behaviors are covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, and most sentences earn their place. The status_id mapping is repeated from the schema, which is slightly redundant, but the overall length is reasonable for a tool with 13 optional filters and important behavioral caveats.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: endpoint, filter behavior, corpus limitation, output shape, and when to escalate to get_bill. It could be more complete by explicitly routing to keyword_search_bills or semantic_search_bills for other search modes, but the schema fills most remaining parameter-level gaps.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that filters combine with AND, that a bill number in q matches the bill directly, and by providing aggregate status buckets. This is a meaningful supplement to the individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search or list legislation with structured filters (GET /v1/bills).' It also clarifies scope by distinguishing from get_bill ('call get_bill for the full record') and by emphasizing structured filters, which separates it from keyword or semantic search siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when you know the jurisdiction, sponsor, topic, or status you want.' It also notes that all filters are optional and combine with AND, and directs users to get_bill for full records. It does not explicitly contrast with keyword_search_bills or semantic_search_bills, but the structured-filter framing implies the distinction.

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