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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: the hard scope limit '118th-Congress HR/S only,' that package identifiers are immutable, and that this is metadata rather than diff content.

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 return payload, followed by use cases and a scope caveat. Three quoted example phrasings are slightly redundant but each clarifies a distinct trigger, so little is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does: version type/code, date, immutable package identifier, package page, and official XML URL. Combined with the explicit coverage boundary, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 bill_type, bill_number, and response_format are already documented in the schema, including the enum semantics and the 'resolutions outside this v1 snapshot' note. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Return every published GovInfo text-version link for one hosted bill,' and enumerates exactly what is returned (version type/code, date, package identifier, page, XML URL). The closing 'version metadata, not a text diff' cleanly separates it from text-diff tooling an agent might otherwise pick.

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?

Concrete usage examples ('show the introduced, reported, engrossed, enrolled, and law versions of H.R. 2670', 'what version codes exist for S. 1?') make the trigger condition explicit, and the coverage note shapes expectations. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. govinfo_legislation_relationships) for the case where the agent wants relationships rather than lineage, so it isn't fully exclusive.

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