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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains vector search semantics, plain-English querying, match_score results, return fields, corpus restriction, and status_id meanings. This goes well beyond the schema and leaves little ambiguity about behavior.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the core purpose and usage guidance front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, including routing, return fields, corpus scope, and status code mapping.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by listing returned fields, status_id values, and aggregate buckets. It also covers when to use the tool and corpus limitations, making it effectively complete for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds helpful examples for the query parameter and status semantics, but it does not add much beyond the schema for limit, state, or threshold.

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 verb and resource: 'Vector search over the full text of every bill' with the endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from search_bills and keyword_search_bills, making the tool's unique role clear.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('questions and topics') and when to prefer search_bills or keyword_search_bills. The corpus limitation ('2026-forward only') is also disclosed, preventing misuse.

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