get_public_bills_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the output medium (an RSS feed) and that only public bills are included, but says nothing about freshness/update cadence, authentication, or whether the feed is cached — modest but not rich behavioral context for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the 'Returns: RSS feed of public bills.' block merely restates the opening sentence, adding a redundant line to an otherwise tight description.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description only needs to convey what the feed covers and when to use it — both are covered. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor freshness/auth details absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 RSS feed of public bills') and immediately scopes it with 'only' and 'excluding private bills', which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools get_all_bills_rss and get_private_bills_rss.

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 monitor government and public bills through RSS feeds' gives a clear use context, and the exclusion clause implicitly routes agents away from the private/all-bills variants. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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