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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description needn't restate it. It does add genuine value by disclosing result content — procedural steps and whether a bill became law (decree number) — which annotations cannot convey. It is silent on pagination, result size, or rate limits despite none of that being covered elsewhere.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its contents before the filter list. Every clause carries information, though the filter enumeration is slightly packed and could be tighter. No boilerplate or restated name/title.

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 usefully sketches the return content (sponsors, committees, steps, decree outcome), which is its main completeness win. However, it omits pagination/limit behavior and the fact that all six parameters are optional (zero required), leaving an agent to infer defaults. Adequate for a 6-param tool but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%: q and sponsor are documented, while from, to, and limit are bare. The description compensates by mapping filters onto these params, notably clarifying that dates are a filter dimension (explaining from/to) and confirming the words/sponsor/status dimensions. It does not explain the direction or format of from/to or the meaning of limit, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Guatemala's Congress bills (iniciativas de ley)') and enumerates what the record contains — sponsors, committees, procedural steps, law outcome. This is clearly distinct from a bare 'search' verb. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from close siblings like congress_votes or search_legal, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'Filter by words, sponsor deputy, status, and dates' clause implies how the tool is driven, which is a weak form of usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many search_* siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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