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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the description's job is to add scope detail — and it does, disclosing the matching fields and the return contents (stage, dates, topic tags, URL). That is meaningful context an agent could not derive from the annotations alone; pagination/ordering behavior is the only notable omission.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the return fields are compactly enumerated at the end.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately names the returned fields and clarifies the searchable corpus. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the three parameters, an agent has nearly everything needed; what is missing is only minor (result ordering, behavior when query matches nothing).

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 query, stage and limit are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that queries are English keywords but adds no syntax, matching, or stage-filter semantics beyond the schema.

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 (keyword search) and resource (bills), and narrows the searchable surface to 'English titles and one-line summaries', which tells the agent exactly what text is matched. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling search/get tools by name, but the scope statement is concrete enough to place it.

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 implied rather than stated: the 'English titles and one-line summaries' scope implicitly warns that non-English queries or full-text body matching will not work, and the tool's nature suggests it is the discovery step before get_bill. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative sibling.

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