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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the payload (title, stage and date, filing/effective dates, one-line summary, links) and by explaining the committee_alternative field's semantics, including the non-obvious caveat that its filing date can postdate its committee/judiciary dates.

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 field inventory is front-loaded in the first clause, with the committee_alternative caveat following as a secondary note. It is information-dense but every clause maps to a real returned field or a real interpretation hazard.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so concretely. For a one-parameter read-only lookup the coverage is nearly sufficient, with the only gap being no statement of failure behavior for an unknown bill number.

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 single parameter's seven-digit format and example are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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) and enumerates exactly what facts are returned, so the agent knows it is a single-record lookup rather than a search. It does not explicitly name search_bills as the alternative, but 'by its bill number' implicitly separates the two.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this tool is the right one when it already has a bill number, versus search_bills when it does not. No when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g. valid-number format) are stated, though the schema does cover the number format.

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