congress_get_bill

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the exact API endpoint, the requirement for an API key, the return structure ('{ bill:{…} } + single-record _meta'), and that nonexistent bills result in 'not_found' without fabrication. No contradictions.

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 three sentences. First sentence states the core action and endpoint. Second lists the parameters. Third describes the return shape and error behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: what it does, how to call it, parameter names, return structure, error case, and auth requirement. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

Input schema covers all parameters with full descriptions (enum values for billType, examples for congress and billNumber). Description restates parameter types and connects them to the URL pattern, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score for 100% coverage is appropriate.

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 'Fetch ONE Congress.gov bill by id via /v3/bill/{congress}/{billType}/{billNumber}'. It specifies the action (Fetch), the resource (Congress.gov bill), and the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_search_bills, which is for searching.

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 mentions the API key requirement ('DATA_GOV_API_KEY or DEMO_KEY') and the error behavior for nonexistent bills. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, but the context of fetching by ID vs. searching in congress_search_bills is clear. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are given, but it's sufficient.

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