Search cosponsors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the 'after' parameter. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about the nature of the operation.

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 short, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide usage guidance. No irrelevant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a general purpose and use cases but does not describe the output structure or return format. It is moderately complete but could be improved by mentioning typical query results.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, though it implies using bioguideId for finding a member's cosponsored bills.

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 'Search bill cosponsorship records across bills' and distinguishes from sibling tool get_bill which retrieves cosponsors for a specific bill. The verb 'search' and resource 'cosponsorship records' are specific.

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 when to use this tool (to find all bills a member cosponsored or analyze by state/party) and explicitly states an alternative: 'To get the cosponsors of a specific bill, prefer get_bill with includeCosponsors: true.'

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