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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context on top: the underlying GovInfo full-text bill index, the shape of returned identifiers, and the branch behavior when query is omitted. It does not state pagination or result-count behavior beyond the schema's limit, but the disclosure exceeds what the annotations carry.

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 tightly packed sentences with the primary search mode front-loaded before the no-query fallback. Slight overlap with schema text, but no padding.

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 usefully discloses that results carry a congress-type-number id usable by get_bill_details, and it flags the current-Congress-only coverage. For a read-only search tool this is enough to call correctly, though return counts and ordering are unspecified.

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 documented, and the description's query examples and 'omit to list recent bills' note largely restate the schema entry. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

"Search for bills in Congress" gives a precise verb and resource, and the description goes on to distinguish this from the sibling get_bill_details by explaining how a result id is consumed downstream. An agent can tell what it fetches and how it differs from bill-detail retrieval without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly branches usage on the `query` parameter: with a query it does full-text topic search, without one it returns recently updated bills optionally filtered by `type`. It also names the follow-on tool (get_bill_details), though it offers no exclusions or guidance on when a different sibling search tool is more appropriate.

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