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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint all true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail about the return content (status, sponsors, subjects, links) beyond annotations, which is helpful.

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 sentences plus an example – extremely concise. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 simple tool (one required param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input source, example, and return fields. Annotations cover safety. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema covers both params with detailed descriptions (bill_id source, API key optional). Schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the bill_id usage but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get the full detail for a single US legislative bill' with specific verb and resource. It lists included fields (status, sponsors, subjects, links) and differentiates from sibling tool search_bills by mentioning using bill_id from search_bills.

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 explicitly says 'Use the bill_id returned by search_bills' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It includes an example call. While it doesn't mention when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is straightforward and sufficient.

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