gov.congress-bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It discloses the API source and the two lookup modes, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or the structure of results (e.g., returns full bill details or just IDs). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences, no filler. First sentence establishes purpose and scope, second sentence defines the type enum. Every sentence adds 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 8 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, default behaviors, filtering logic, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if congress is omitted). For a moderately complex tool, this is incomplete.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the 'type' enum values and implicitly highlights 'congress', 'type', and 'number' as key look-up parameters. However, parameters like 'sort', 'limit', 'offset', 'fromDate', 'toDate' are not explained, though their names are somewhat intuitive. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 is for 'US Congressional bill lookup' with two use cases (specific bill by congress/type/number or filtered list) and lists all bill types with abbreviations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gov.bill-summaries or gov.congress-member.

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 mentions the two modes (lookup vs filtered list) and references the API source, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., gov.bill-summaries for summaries, gov.congress-amendment for amendments). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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