get_bill_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the result includes MAJOR_CONTENT and PROPOSE_REASON, and that null is returned when no bill is found. This is sufficient transparency for a simple read-only lookup, though it doesn't discuss errors or rate limits.

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 well structured with a purpose statement, usage steps, argument explanations, and return behavior. Every section earns its place and nothing is redundant or verbose.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return fields extensively. It provides the required workflow, parameter semantics, and null behavior, making it complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 clearly explain that bill_id accepts either an ID like PRC_... or a number like 2200001, and that age is an optional assembly term. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 clearly states it retrieves detailed information for a specific bill and lists key contents (MAJOR_CONTENT and PROPOSE_REASON). It identifies a distinct resource and action, but doesn't explicit differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_bill_history.

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 provides an explicit workflow: use search_bills first to obtain the bill ID, then pass it to this tool. It give clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't mention exclusion or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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