What's moving in Congress

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns an honest empty list, never pads results, and distinguishes between quiet_week and data_stale. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then adding edge-case details. It is efficient, but slightly longer than necessary; a shorter version could preserve all key points.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return behavior (quiet_week, data_stale). It covers the filtering criteria and output shape adequately for the tool's complexity. However, it could mention the fields of the returned bills.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates defaults (7 days, limit 10) already in the schema, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the resource as 'active, plain-language-decoded bills' that cleared an urgency bar, with optional topic filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like search_bills (broader search) and get_bill (single bill), making the purpose specific and 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 (to find urgent bills) and details edge cases like quiet_week and data_stale, which guide appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like search_bills.

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