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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination, the official source, coverage starting at the 118th Congress, and that related targets may include resolution types not otherwise hosted. It does not add auth/rate-limit details, but it is not misleading and supplements the annotations well.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the return payload and source, the second gives concrete use examples and coverage limits. Every clause adds value with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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, but the description lists the key result components: relationship types, who identified each relationship, and the latest published action. It also discloses pagination and coverage boundaries. It does not explain the exact JSON/markdown structure or error behavior, but for a read-only, well-scoped tool this is adequately complete.

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 every parameter is already explained in the input schema. The description reinforces that bill_type is limited to HR/S and references pagination, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for limit, offset, bill_number, or response_format. 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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return a paginated related-measure map for one bill.' It names the data source (official GovInfo Bill Status XML) and enumerates the exact relationship types included. It also gives concrete example queries ('find the Senate companion to this House bill'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling govinfo tools focused on search, committee paths, or version lineage.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for' and provides three realistic scenarios, making intended usage clear. It states a coverage constraint (118th-Congress HR/S bills) but does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when an alternative would be more appropriate. Still, for a lookup tool the guidance is strong.

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