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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the response shape (aggregate counts first, then a page of bare records), the exact fields returned (id, type, chamber, active), and the fact that it is keyless and reads from the Legislature's own service. The note that records are 'bare' and descriptions require wa_bill_status is the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then example queries, then the keyless note — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, and the trailing 'Keyless.' is fragmentary, 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing both the aggregate block and the paged record fields, plus pointing to wa_bill_status for per-bill detail. For a filtered-list tool with zero required parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 still adds semantic gloss by explaining what each status value means (e.g. 'signed' by the Governor, 'partial_veto') and restating the agency-as-chamber-of-origin dependency. It does not cover limit/offset behavior, but the schema documents those adequately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Washington State legislative bills for a BIENNIUM') plus the exact filtering dimension (procedural status) and enumerates every status value. It also distinguishes itself from wa_bill_status, which is named as the tool to call for a bill's description, 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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use queries ('how many bills passed the Legislature in 2025-26', 'what did the Governor sign from the House in 2025-26') and states the default status and the agency prerequisite for signed/vetoed/partial_veto. It does not explicitly exclude or contrast with siblings like wa_bill_votes or wa_bill_amendments, which keeps it 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.