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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds a couple of useful behavioral details (synthesized from live sources, cryptographic receipt, price), but doesn't explain the meaning or limitations of the receipt or response behavior. With the bar lower due to annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the tool's function and then adds source, receipt, and price details. Every chunk earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool, the description conveys the output content, input dimensions, and cost. It is still incomplete around optional behavior (e.g., default jurisdiction), response format, and when to prefer a sibling synthesis tool, which matters given no output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries most of the parameter meaning. It maps 'topic' and 'jurisdiction' through the phrase 'for a topic and jurisdiction' and ties them to legislative content, but it doesn't clarify formats, the optionality of jurisdiction, or supported jurisdiction values.

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 names a specific resource (legislative intelligence) and a concrete output scope (current bill status, recent passages, amendments), so an agent can tell it from a generic lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast with neighboring synthesis tools like get_regulatory_news_synthesis or get_case_law_synthesis, which keeps it from a 5.

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 use case is implied: call it to get synthesized legislative status, passages, and amendments for a topic and jurisdiction. It never states when not to use it or names an alternative, so the agent must infer choice from the tool name and sibling names.

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