congress_bill_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds value by specifying the data content, but does not disclose behavior such as response size, pagination, or error conditions. This is a moderate disclosure level, not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the key data elements. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 moderate complexity of a bill details endpoint and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns by listing major components. It could be more exhaustive, but the enumeration of 'including' components covers the primary use case and is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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% with each parameter documented (e.g., congress number examples, bill type enum, bill number examples). The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond stating the tool targets 'a specific bill', so it relies on the schema's already adequate parameter descriptions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific bill'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by enumerating the components it returns (sponsors, cosponsors, actions, committees, status). This differentiates it from more focused congress bill sub-resource tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like congress_bill_actions or congress_bill_full_profile. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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