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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot express: the adoption fallback chain with adopted:false marking, the found:false named reason, the built-in sum check of function figures against stated totals, nominal-dollar units, and the GPO source.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence carries load: scope first, then return/fallback semantics, then the sum check, then usage examples, units, filters and source. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 five-parameter, open-world data-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, how adoption status is signaled, what happens when nothing is found, units, and how filters behave. Return-value formatting is rightly left to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns one more by explaining the filtering intent (narrowing to function and year) and by clarifying that the resolution's levels extend to later years, which contextualizes fiscal_year versus target_year.

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 names the specific resource (congressional budget resolution levels) and enumerates exactly what it returns: revenues, budget authority, outlays, deficit and debt, plus per-function figures. The concrete example queries ("FY2025 budget resolution defense outlays") pin the tool's scope sharply enough to distinguish it from a resolution-search sibling.

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 gives explicit use cases in quoted example queries and states that optional filters narrow function and year, plus a clear fallback policy (adopted resolution, then best chamber-passed proposal, then found:false with a named reason). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over budget_resolution_find or resolution_diff, but the context is clear.

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