get_amendment_by_id

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but the definition never states permissions, that it is non-mutating, or any error/not-found behavior. It does add the field inventory of the response, which is modestly useful context.

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-loads the purpose well in one sentence, but the Args/Returns boilerplate largely duplicates the input schema and the existing output schema, so it does not fully earn its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed; the description adequately conveys that this is a single-item detail fetch. However, with zero annotation and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves the agent under-informed about the three required parameters and read-only safety.

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 0% for all three integer parameters, and the description only restates names ('bill_id: Bill ID', 'bill_stage_id: Bill stage ID') without explaining how to obtain a stage id or how bill/stage/amendment ids relate. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the identifiers themselves.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific amendment') and enumerates the fields returned, which separates it from the list-style sibling get_bill_stage_amendments. The 'by_id' retrieval scope is clear, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 you need complete amendment details including text, sponsors, decision, and explanatory notes' gives contextual usage, but there is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named despite several amendment/bill-stage siblings.

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