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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: results are computed by deterministic trigram similarity across jurisdictions and are explicitly labeled 'derived,' not official cross-references. This manages expectations about both determinism and result trustworthiness.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the trust caveat relegated to second position. No filler, though the multiline formatting adds no structural value.

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 characterizes what comes back (derived similar-title matches, cross-jurisdiction). But it omits output shape, ordering, and what limit does, leaving meaningful gaps for a search-style tool.

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%, and neither 'bill_id' nor 'limit' is explained anywhere. With two parameters undocumented in the schema, the description carries the full burden and supplies nothing about what bill_id expects or what limit controls.

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 ('Find'), resource ('bills'), and distinctive method ('similar titles via deterministic trigram similarity'), which clearly separates it from exact-match lookups like get_bill_record. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool such as search_legislation.

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 a fuzzy-title use case but never states when to prefer this over search_legislation or get_bill_record, nor any prerequisites. The 'derived, not official' caveat describes the nature of results rather than guiding tool selection.

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