legislative_impact_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does reveal the output shape (nodes, edges, mermaid, top_followups) and the supported target_type values, which helps. However, it does not clarify read-only behavior, how target_type=auto resolves, or any limits/edge cases, so behavioral disclosure is partial.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the result structure is given compactly. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of parameter semantics.

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?

With no annotations and a 0%-described input schema, the agent lacks enough to invoke correctly: target format is unspecified, target_type values are not explained, and limit/age semantics are absent. The output keys in the description help, but the required input contract is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only adds that target_type supports auto/topic/bill, without defining what each value means or what format target should take. It adds nothing for the required target, limit, or age parameters. This is insufficient compensation for a schema that provides zero parameter documentation.

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 ('generates') and resource ('relationship graph of bills, committees, legislators, reports, voting signals') centered on a topic or bill. The graph output makes it structurally distinct from sibling search/detail tools, but it never names a sibling or an alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like analyze_legislative_issue, search_bills, or analyze_voting_trends. It only lists target_type values, leaving the agent to infer the right context from the tool name.

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