get_bill_stages

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 implies a read-only listing and mentions pagination via skip/take, but discloses no permissions, rate limits, or result characteristics beyond the terse 'Returns: All stages for the specified bill.' Adequate but thin for a definition with zero annotation coverage.

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 and usage before the Args/Returns boilerplate. The Google-style Args/Returns blocks are somewhat redundant with the schema and output schema, but the prose is tight and earns its place.

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 needn't be explained. For a simple read tool with one required parameter, the description plus structured fields cover what an agent needs to call it correctly, though behavioral details remain sparse.

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. It names and briefly explains all three parameters ('bill ID to get stages for', 'number of records to skip', 'number of records to return'), which is helpful but minimal and adds little beyond the parameter names 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 with scope: 'Get all stages of a specific bill by bill ID.' It also names the relevant sibling tools (get_bill_stage_details, get_bill_stage_amendments, get_bill_committees), letting an agent distinguish it from neighboring stage-related tools without opening a 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers ('tracking a bill's progress', 'understanding its legislative journey', 'finding specific stages like Committee Stage'). The 'See also' list points to alternatives, though it doesn't state when to prefer those over this tool, so no explicit exclusions.

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