Search bills

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate. It adds no further behavioral traits like rate limits or authorization needs, and the output description is about result format, not behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 description explains the output format (teasers with headline, status, urgency) and ordering (most urgent first), which is important since there is no output schema. It covers the main search dimensions but lacks differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

The description gives a high-level summary of parameter usage (free-text, topic, status, active-only) but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 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 the tool searches Oravan's bilingual federal bill corpus by multiple criteria (free-text, topic, status, active-only) and returns teasers. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bill by being a search function over a corpus.

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 implies usage for finding bills via criteria but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_bill, get_representative, or whats_moving. However, the context of search vs. single-bill retrieval is clear.

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