Deterministic diff (unified + structured) between two versions of a bill's extracted text. Defaults to earliest vs. latest texted version if version ids are omitted. Errors if fewer than 2 versions have extracted text. Result is labeled 'derived' (computed by Bill Commons, not an official document).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | ||
| version_id_a | No | ||
| version_id_b | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the default-to-earliest/latest rule, the error condition, and the important provenance caveat that output is 'derived' rather than an official document. This is meaningful context beyond the annotation set.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the default/error/provenance details. Every sentence carries information; only the ordering could be marginally tightened.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description adequately characterizes the return (unified + structured diff, labeled 'derived'). Default and failure behavior are covered for a 3-param read tool; only bill_id semantics remain unstated.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for version_id_a/version_id_b by explaining the default when omitted, but bill_id semantics are never stated and the relationship/ordering of A vs B is left implicit. Partial compensation only.
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 (diff/compare) and resource (a bill's extracted text versions), with the scope 'unified + structured' and the determinism guarantee. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like trace_legislative_history or get_bill_record without opening any schema.
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?
Clearly explains the default behavior when version ids are omitted (earliest vs latest texted version) and names the precondition that will cause failure (<2 versions with extracted text). It does not explicitly point to alternative tools for version listing, so it stops short of full when/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
