bill_stages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does establish that this is a static, exhaustive reference set (all possible stages) rather than a per-bill query, which is the key behavioral fact. It says nothing about caching, stability of the list, or how the order of stages relates to the legislative sequence.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the description is short with no filler. The trailing 'Returns: All bill stages with descriptions' is mild padding given an output schema already exists, but it costs almost nothing.

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 zero-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the description is sufficient: purpose, an example of the values, and confirmation that descriptions accompany the stages. The only real gap is failure to disambiguate from get_bill_stages, which sits in the sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical examples (First Reading, Committee Stage, Royal Assent) give useful flavor about what the returned stage values look like.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Get all possible stages a bill can go through' — and the word 'possible' signals this is the reference taxonomy rather than instance data. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the closely-named siblings get_bill_stages and bill_types, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use when tracking bill progress' is loosely worded and arguably points an agent at instance-level tools like get_bill_stages; no alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are stated. The only real guidance is the parenthetical process example, which is illustrative rather than directional.

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