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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real context beyond them: data provenance (read directly from the Legislature's own service, not a third-party aggregator) and keyless access. It stops short of disclosing failure behavior for unknown/invalid bill numbers or any rate-limit considerations, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then routing, then the session caveat — a sensible ordering with no filler. The field enumeration in the first sentence runs long and could be tightened, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing what comes back and where the data originates. The only gap for a two-parameter lookup tool is behavior when a bill number doesn't match anything in the chosen biennium.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by restating the biennium default rule ('default: the current one') and by reinforcing that bill numbers are session-scoped, which is a semantic trap the schema only hints at. It does not add format details beyond the schema's own example strings.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the current status of a Washington State LEGISLATIVE BILL') with an explicit enumeration of returned fields (description, legal title, sponsors, introduced date, procedural history, current status, companions). It also names the three sibling tools it is NOT (wa_bill_amendments, wa_bill_votes, wa_session_bills) so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('what is the status of HB 1000', 'who sponsored SB 5016') and explicitly routes to alternatives for amendment history, floor votes, and full session listings. The biennium caveat ('bill numbers reset each biennium — pass biennium for a past session') is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance that prevents wrong calls.

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