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

The description discloses significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies the response includes part, total_parts, next_part, part_sha256, and a whole-bill content_hash, and explains the verification scheme (concatenating parts hashes to content_hash). This adds context about pagination and data integrity that annotations do not cover.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries essential information (purpose, response structure, verification method). There is no fluff or repetition.

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 must explain return values, and it does: it describes the response fields (part, total_parts, next_part, hashes) and the concatenation rule for verification. It also addresses the pagination use case and constraints (bounded slices, max_chars indirectly), making the tool's behavior clear for an agent.

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 description largely reinforces the schema (e.g., 'addressed by part number or section label' mirrors the section and part parameters). It does not add meaningful new semantics about formats or defaults beyond what the schema already provides, though it does tie the part parameter to the response's total_parts and next_part.

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 opens with 'One signed, bounded slice of a bill's full legislative text, addressed by part number or section label,' which clearly specifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like politics_bill_toc. The verb 'slice' and resource 'bill's full legislative text' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for bills too large to return in a single response ('a bill too large to return in a single response remains verifiable as complete and unaltered'), but it never explicitly names alternatives like politics_bill or politics_bill_toc, nor does it state when not to use this tool. This is implied guidance rather than explicit direction.

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