Bill statutory-text table of contents for section navigation (GovInfo)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses that the tool returns only structure, not text; explains depth clamping (1-5, default 2), the 500-node cap, and the two distinct incompleteness signals (depth_reduced and toc_truncated) along with the toc_note for depth needed. This is exceptionally transparent and goes beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 a single well-structured paragraph with no fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information: purpose, alternatives, behavior on depth/node cap, and the distinction between two incompleteness flags. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds nuanced detail.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters and an output schema. The description fully explains the tool's behavior and edge cases (depth clamping, node cap, truncation flags). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, but the description covers the key aspects of how to interpret the returned flags, making it complete for its role.

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 for all five parameters. It only meaningfully describes 'depth' (default, clamp range, and its relation to depth_reduced). It does not explain 'congress', 'bill_type', 'number', or 'version', relying on standard bill-identification context. This is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 the tool returns a shallow table of contents (divisions, titles, subtitles, sections) for a bill's statutory text, and explicitly distinguishes it as a navigation aid for discovering section_id values to use with get_bill_section or search_bill_text. It also contrasts with other bill-related tools by specifying it returns only structure, never the text.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (as a navigation aid) and when not to use it (not the answer path). It names the alternative tools for retrieving sections or searching text, and explains the depth and node cap behavior with flags like depth_reduced and toc_truncated, giving clear guidance on interpreting results.

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