get_bill_petition_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. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — the show_on_website_only filter and its default — which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, visibility rules for non-website petitions, or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core action, but the pipe-delimited keyword list plus the redundant 'Returns petition details' / 'Returns: Detailed bill petition record.' duplication costs space without adding information.

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 spelled out. For a simple get-by-id tool this is adequate, but it omits the get-vs-search routing guidance that would make it complete alongside search_bill_petitions.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both params ('Bill petition ID.' and the website-visibility filter with its default). The petition_id explanation is thin and adds little beyond the parameter name.

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+resource ('Get a specific bill petition by ID') and adds domain keywords ('bill petition, private bill, hybrid bill petition'). The 'by ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from search_bill_petitions, though the sibling is never 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 to get full details of a petition submitted on a Private Bill' gives implied usage context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the sibling search_bill_petitions for discovery-style lookups, leaving the get-vs-search distinction to inference.

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