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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: data is a static snapshot (not live), coverage is limited to HR/S in the 118th Congress, and returned data includes pagination, source XML hashes, and provenance. This reveals the data freshness and scope limitations, which is valuable for setting expectations. It stops short of describing error modes or exact result formatting, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-organized: scope first, return payload second, example queries third, coverage limitation fourth, alternative tool last. Every sentence conveys a distinct fact, and the length is justified given the tool's complexity alert. It is not redundant, though the first sentence is long and could be split for even easier scanning.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what is searched, what is returned (identifiers, facts, pagination, hashes, provenance), coverage limits, and how it compares to a sibling. There is no mention of how to handle errors or empty results, but the description is sufficiently complete for initial selection and invocation.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description echoes the query param's scope and highlights the 'enacted and multi-version filters' (matching enacted_only and multiple_text_versions_only), which adds a small hint but does not compensate for anything missing. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clearly defined resource ('LiveDataLink's self-hosted official GovInfo Bill Status snapshot'), listing the searchable fields (bill number/title, sponsor, policy area, subjects, committees). It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'self-hosted snapshot' and explicitly contrasting with Congress.gov live tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not.

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?

Provides explicit use cases with example queries ('find 118th Congress bills about aviation safety', 'which border bills became law?') and states the coverage boundary ('HR and S in the 118th Congress only; resolutions and other Congresses are excluded'). It also names the alternative ('For Congress.gov's live/current API view, use the existing Congress tools instead'), making the selection logic fully explicit.

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