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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what include does for votes and actions (full tally, per-legislator positions, complete history), and states that 'full detail' is returned. However, it doesn't clarify the default response when include is not specified, nor does it describe the response structure or potential errors. This is adequate given annotations but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact, with exactly four sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains parameter options, the third gives examples of include behavior, and the fourth provides a preference tip. No word is wasted, and the structure is logical for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description covers the essential aspects: how to identify the bill, the include parameter's role and common uses, and the preferred parameter choice. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or defaults, but these are less critical for correct invocation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for each parameter, covering 100% of them. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: it clarifies that jurisdiction, session, and bill_id form a three-part path, and that openstates_id is an alternative and preferred. This relational knowledge goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, so the description compensates well.

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 clearly states the tool 'Fetch full detail for a specific state bill.' It specifies the resource (bill) and the action (fetch), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_bills (which searches) and get_committee/get_event (which target different entity types). It also clarifies the two identification methods, removing ambiguity.

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 provides clear guidance: it recommends preferring openstates_id when available to avoid session identifier lookup, and suggests using include to request related data in one call instead of searching again. This implies a workflow (first search, then get). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_bills for when no ID exists, but the guidance is sufficient and actionable.

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