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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the return contents (legislative history, actions, sponsors, votes) and specifying input provenance, but doesn't discuss pagination or error behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is solid but not maximal.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return contents, and input provenance with an example. Every sentence earns its place; the description is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a 3-parameter lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, how to obtain inputs, and gives an example. It doesn't mention rate limits or not-found behavior, but those are minor given the output schema and annotation coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example (jurisdiction='ca', session='20252026', bill_id='SB 700') and explaining that parameters should come from bills_search results, which aids correct invocation.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('full details for a specific US state bill'), and the required identifiers (jurisdiction, session, bill_id). The description clearly differentiates from the sibling bills_search by focusing on retrieval of a known bill's complete details.

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 instructs to obtain jurisdiction and session from bills_search results, which tells the agent when to use this tool (after search) and points to the alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state a 'when not to use' condition or name other alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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