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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns specific fields, supports nationwide or one-state search, and provides an example. It doesn't cover rate limits or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 two sentences plus a concrete example, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains the tool's scope, output shape, integration with get_bill, and provides a usage example. No output schema exists, but the return values are explicitly named.

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's example reinforces parameter usage but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No penalty, but no extra credit.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Full-text search US state (and federal) legislation') and clearly states the scope (one state or ALL) and the output (matching bills with key fields and a bill_id). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the pass-off to get_bill, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: searching for bills about a topic, optionally limited to a state, and explains that results include a bill_id that can be passed to get_bill. It implies a workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond get_bill.

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