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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it returns facts for a single bill, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown bill number (null, empty, or error).

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the identity of the resource and then lists the return fields. Efficient, though the colon-separated field list is slightly dense.

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 one totally documented parameter, a clear annotation set, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could disclose the not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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% and the schema already carries the seven-digit format with an example, so the description adds little on parameters. It reinforces that the lookup key is the bill number, but the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline is around 3-4 with no additional param detail.

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 (get) and resource (National Assembly bill) keyed by an exact identifier, and enumerates the returned facts. The scope ('by its bill number') distinguishes it from search_bills, so an agent can route between them without inspecting 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 phrase 'by its bill number' implies this is the lookup path once you already have an identifier, which tacitly contrasts with search_bills. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered, so the routing must be inferred.

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