get_bill_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool aggregates four other calls into one, which is genuine value-add context. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, auth requirements, or how the search matches, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 purpose and usage condition are front-loaded efficiently, and the combiner list is concrete. The pipe-separated keyword dump ('complete bill info, legislation overview, bill progress, full bill details') is somewhat redundant tag-spam that duplicates the later Returns line.

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?

Given a single required parameter, an existing output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, aggregation behavior, usage condition, and alternatives. Return-value detail is legitimately omitted because an output schema exists. Only minor behavioral gaps remain.

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 the schema only defines 'search_term' as a bare string, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Search term for bill title or content' clarifies the matching semantics and adds three concrete examples, which meaningfully exceeds the schema.

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 comprehensive bill overview') and explicitly names what it aggregates: search_bills, get_bill_by_id, get_bill_stages, get_bill_publications. An agent can distinguish this aggregator tool from the individual sibling tools without opening any schema.

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 information about a bill without multiple tool calls' gives a clear selection condition versus the single-purpose siblings it names. The 'See also' routing to get_bill_committees and get_member_bills is helpful, but no explicit when-NOT-to-use (e.g. when only one aspect is needed) is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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