get_bill_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes that biennium is optional and defaults to current. However, it fails to mention read-only nature, error handling, or any side effects. The return format is described as a dict, which adds some transparency.

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 concise and follows a clear docstring structure with Args and Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It earns its place efficiently.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. Parameter semantics are well-explained, and the return type is mentioned. However, it could list specific keys in the returned dict for better completeness, but since output schema exists, this is less critical.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for bill_number (e.g., 1234 for HB1234) and the format for biennium. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema. However, it could include validation or default behavior for missing biennium.

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 states it retrieves detailed information about a specific bill. Although it lists the return fields, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_bill_status or get_bill_content. However, the verb 'retrieve detailed information' and the mention of 'description, sponsor, status, etc.' clearly indicate the tool's purpose.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the parameters but does not offer comparative usage advice or prerequisites. For a tool with many siblings, this lack of context could confuse agents.

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