get_bill_patrons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: output is in LIS display order, role is restricted to three values, and member_id is a chainable key to related tools. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or any call limitations, but for a read-only list endpoint this is acceptable.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the role enumeration is valuable, the chaining note is actionable, and the get_bill comparison prevents tool-selection confusion. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers ordering, role values, and chaining relationships. However, the absence of any parameter guidance combined with 0% schema coverage leaves a real gap for an agent selecting and invoking this tool correctly. It is usable but not fully complete.

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% for the two required parameters, and the description adds no input parameter meaning. It explains output concepts like role and member_id, but says nothing about bill_number or session_code formats, validation, or interpretation. The description was expected to compensate for the missing schema descriptions and did not.

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?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: every patron of a bill with their member ids, in LIS display order. It also differentiates from get_bill, which lists the same names grouped by role but without ids, so an agent can immediately tell the two apart.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need member ids that can chain into get_member, get_member_bills, get_member_votes, and get_member_committees. It also names get_bill as the alternative when ids are not needed. The guidance is clear but implied rather than stated as an explicit when-to-use rule.

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