get_bill_summaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful result behavior: the `is_active` field marks the current summary, and an empty list indicates no summary exists for that bill/session. This goes beyond return format details into practical interpretation, though it does not mention side effects or failure conditions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first the resource, then the important `is_active` and empty-list semantics. 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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, the core resources and empty-result semantics are covered. However, missing parameter documentation and usage guidance leave an agent less able to confidently construct and interpret calls, especially given the 0% schema coverage on parameters.

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 only indirectly refers to 'bill' and 'session'; it does not explain what bill_number should look like, what session_code values are valid, or how they combine. The parameter names are self-explanatory only at a basic level.

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 the resource ('plain-text summaries of a bill') and gives examples of the summary variants ('as introduced, as passed, ...'), so the purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_bill_text or get_bill, but the resource is distinct enough by name and content.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bill_text or get_bill. The description only explains output semantics, not the context in which this summary endpoint is appropriate.

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