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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the result includes a prediction-market cross-reference, and the alias relationship implies identical behavior to 'legislation.' However, it does not mention read-only status, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving much undisclosed.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, and the alias note adds useful context 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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no nested objects, the description is adequate. It communicates the core function and a distinguishing feature (cross-reference), but the lack of an output schema means the agent may not know the exact return structure, though that is not strictly required.

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?

The sole parameter, billId, is fully described in the schema with an example. The description's 'Get bill detail' adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool retrieves bill details and augments with prediction-market cross-reference. It also notes it is an alias of 'legislation,' which helps distinguish it from other get_* tools, though the alias reference could be confusing to an agent deciding which canonical tool to use.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch a specific bill's details, and the alias note indicates it is interchangeable with the 'legislation' sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_legislation or other bill-related tools, nor does it provide exclusions.

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