Get a bill decode

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reports read-only behavior. It adds valuable context: the summary is human-reviewed and clearly labeled, citation resolution behavior, and an explicit statement that it never drafts phone scripts. 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 a single paragraph of about 5-6 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of return fields, and ending with a clear negative statement. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the tool returns (summary components, status, urgency, sponsor, dates, Congress.gov URL, act_url). It also covers all parameter behaviors and the tool's limitations. The context is complete for an agent to understand 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds extra meaning: slug takes priority over citation, citation resolves to most recent Congress, and locale has a default. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 it gets a full plain-language decode of a federal bill by slug or citation. It lists the specific return fields (summary, status, urgency, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from script generation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool (to get bill details by slug or citation) and notes that citation resolves to the most recent Congress. It also states what the tool never does (drafts phone scripts), providing a negative guideline. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or give explicit alternatives.

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