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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the default return payload (metadata, excerpt, text index) and the token-cap rationale for omitting full text, plus how include_text alters behavior. This goes beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core content list and followed by a concise explanation of the default behavior and token-cap warning. No filler words; every clause contributes to understanding.

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 summarizes return shape (metadata, excerpt, text index) and key data categories. It warns about token caps for full text. However, it does not explain how to interpret the text index or origin proof, nor does it reference the sibling politics_bill_text as an alternative for full text, leaving minor gaps.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both bill_id (including an example) and include_text (enum values, defaults, and token-cap warning). The description does not add new parameter details beyond referencing include_text at a high level, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly enumerates the tool's content: 'vote breakdown, sponsors, cosponsors, status, and origin proof.' It also differentiates from siblings by stating it returns 'metadata, a short text excerpt, and a text index by default' rather than full text, which aligns with the existence of politics_bill_text.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving bill details and warns that full text may exceed token caps, but it does not explicitly recommend when to use this tool over siblings like politics_bill_text. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage context vague.

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