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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default session behavior (newest when omitted), ordering, pagination, and exact return fields. It also explains filter value meanings (status codes, chamber letters), exceeding what annotations provide.

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 description is a single dense sentence that front-loads purpose and then efficiently enumerates filters. Every clause adds semantic value with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies return fields, ordering, pagination, default session, and all filter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility and succeeds. It explains every filter parameter with allowed values (kind: hb/sb/hr/sr, chamber: H/S, status: codes 1-6, subject: headings search, q: words). It also implies pagination via '25 a page' and default session behavior. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 lists bills of a session, with explicit details on ordering (number order), pagination (25 a page), and return fields (id, title, status, URL). It differentiates itself naturally from siblings like bills_search (search) and bills_get_text (text extraction) by focusing on listing with filters.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (listing bills with filters on kind, chamber, status, subject, or q). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the filter-based listing purpose is evident. A slight deduction for not explicitly indicating when to prefer bills_search for full-text search.

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