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

The description discloses the output format (Markdown with frontmatter, verbatim text, summaries) and the effect of `full`. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description aligns with these, adding detail about the response structure without contradiction.

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 moderately long but well organized around the main purpose and the two optional parameters. There is minor redundancy in listing 'status' twice in the frontmatter/closing phrase, but it does not detract significantly from clarity.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how the optional parameters change the result. It omits error behavior or edge cases, but the core usage is well covered.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for the parameters, but the tool description covers all three: `bill` (accepted forms), `session` (defaults to newest), and `full` (adds extra content). This compensates well for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 identifies the resource (a single Georgia General Assembly bill or resolution) and the lookup action implied by the tool name, including accepted formats. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or use a verb like 'retrieve', but the scope is sufficiently distinct.

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 explains the optional `session` parameter (when not the newest session) and the `full` parameter (adds history, votes, amendments), which gives practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling lookup/search tools, but the parameter instructions are useful.

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