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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the required jurisdiction format and the output's purpose for use with get_bill, enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential execution guidance (jurisdiction format, return fields, workflow linkage). Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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 search tool with a rich input schema and an output schema available, the description covers the essential context: how to specify jurisdiction, what results include, and how they connect to get_bill. Pagination and filtering options are already documented in the schema, so no further detail is needed here.

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%, with each parameter already described. The description adds minor value by giving concrete examples of jurisdiction values ('CA', 'NY', 'TX') and noting that OpenStates IDs are returned, but it does not significantly deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb-action ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('bills') and scope ('any US statehouse'). It explicitly states the jurisdiction input format and lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bill and search_legislators.

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 context for use: it is a search tool that returns OpenStates IDs 'for use with get_bill', establishing a complementary workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., search_legislators), so it falls short of a 5.

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