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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld, so the cost/auth disclosure here is the substantive payload: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. It also discloses the data source and its coverage boundary, which matters because a miss on an uncovered congress would otherwise look like a bug.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the source, then pricing. Dense but no filler sentences; the pricing sentence earns its place by disclosing a paid call. Mildly packed with parentheticals, which costs a point.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the remaining agent-critical facts are all here: paid-call economics, no charge on failure, source provenance, and the congress coverage limit. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the bill-type enumeration. The description reinforces the 'one bill by congress, type and number' framing but adds no format, range or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states. 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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves a single US Congress bill's status, and enumerates exactly what comes back (title, sponsor, introduced date, latest action, congress.gov link). It also identifies the underlying source (GPO GovInfo BILLSTATUS XML) and notes the GovTrack API it replaces, which makes its scope unmistakable against the broad set of sibling government-data tools.

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?

States the retrieval contract clearly: one bill, keyed by congress, bill type and number, and warns that only congresses with BILLSTATUS files are covered (119 at test time). That coverage caveat is real guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for other congresses or bulk/list queries, so no explicit when-not-to-use routing.

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