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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour beyond that: results are ordered newest-first, the payload contains links rather than document text, and each call costs 1 credit. Pagination behaviour and what happens at the 100-document cap are not disclosed, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then document types, then audience, then the critical caveat that links are returned rather than text. Every sentence earns its place and the caveat is placed before an agent could mistake this for a full-text tool.

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 compensates fully by saying the response is a newest-first list of PDF/web links rather than document bodies. For a two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing needed to invoke or interpret it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both limit and billId (including the bill_search provenance and an example ID). The description adds only the newest-first ordering, which is implicit sorting context rather than parameter meaning; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Lists the documents published for a UK bill") and then enumerates the exact document classes returned (bill texts, explanatory notes, amendment papers, impact assessments, delegated powers memoranda, committee reports). This enumeration separates it from neighbours like bill_amendments, bill_status and bill_stages_timeline without the agent needing to open a 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?

Gives clear situational context ("For lawyers and policy staff after the latest bill text or notes") and a follow-up routing hint ("pair it with a URL or PDF reader to read one"). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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