get_pr_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by listing what the full detail includes (abstract, sponsors, action history), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling for invalid identifiers, rate limits, or whether partial data can be returned. This is moderate transparency for a read-only lookup tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists the key return fields, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, get-by-id tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, what the parameter is, and what the response contains. However, it does not mention the sibling search tool, which could help an agent decide between the two, and there is no output schema to clarify return format. This is a minor gap for the simplicity of the 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 coverage is 100%: the identifier parameter has a description with examples ('PC 456' or 'ps-123'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats 'by identifier'. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's action ('Get full detail'), the specific resource ('one Puerto Rico legislative measure'), and the scope ('by identifier: abstract, sponsors, and action history'). This specific verb+resource+scope framing effectively distinguishes it from the sibling search tool, which is for searching legislation rather than retrieving full detail by ID.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search_pr_legislation. The description implies the tool is for retrieving full details by identifier, but it does not state that search should be used when an identifier is unknown, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. This lacks explicit usage context.

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