get_bill_rss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the RSS feed actually is (a URL, XML payload, or metadata), whether any authentication or subscription is required, or any rate/refresh characteristics of a feed endpoint.

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 purpose in one sentence, which is good. The Args/Returns block then restates the same information ('RSS feed for the specified bill'), which is boilerplate rather than added value.

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-value explanation is not required. However, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage on the only parameter, the definition leaves the agent without enough behavioral or parameter context for a feed endpoint.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description's 'bill_id: Bill ID to get RSS feed for' merely restates the name, adding no format, source, or valid-range detail to compensate for the schema gap.

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 RSS feed for a specific bill by ID'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_all_bills_rss, get_public_bills_rss, and get_private_bills_rss, so an agent must infer the scoping difference.

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 want to track updates and changes to a particular piece of legislation' gives implied context for the single-bill case. It never names or contrasts with the sibling RSS tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, so routing guidance is only partial.

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