get_bill_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'Get... Returns: Comprehensive bill details.' Read-only nature is implied by the verb and the output schema covers the return shape, but nothing is said about error behavior for an unknown ID, whether the ID must come from a search call, or any access constraints.

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, followed by the usage trigger and sibling pointers; the Args/Returns blocks are lightly redundant but standard. Overall tight and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description is close to sufficient. It omits, however, the practical detail of how an agent obtains a valid bill_id and what happens on a miss, which is the main remaining gap.

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% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. Its 'bill_id: Unique bill ID number' line adds essentially nothing beyond the property name and type — it does not say where to obtain the ID (e.g., from search_bills or get_recently_updated_bills) or what form it takes.

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 bill by ID') and enumerates the content it returns (title, sponsors, stages, summary, status). It names related siblings (get_bill_overview, get_bill_stages, get_bill_committees), which helps an agent see it as the comprehensive bill getter, though it never says explicitly how it differs from get_bill_overview.

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 comprehensive bill details including title, sponsors, stages, summary, and current status' gives a clear positive trigger and the 'See also' list surfaces the alternatives. No when-not guidance is offered, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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