Bills affecting an RCW cite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the SOAP web service and the biennium default, but doesn't describe output format, error behavior, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'List,' so a score of 3 reflects the partial but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and adds only the essential detail about the biennium format and default. Every sentence is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, the default biennium, and the external service. It lacks explicit detail on return values, but the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema keep the score at 4 rather than lower.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (cite and biennium) with examples and default behavior. The description's mention of biennium format and default adds nothing beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the target resource as 'bills in a biennium that amend or affect a given RCW citation,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_section and search. The purpose is immediately evident.

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 explains the tool's context (RCW citation, biennium) and provides the default biennium behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, matching a score of 4.

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