congress_bill_related

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the types of relationships it identifies, but it does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or any other limitations beyond the annotation.

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 two short, impactful sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a meaningful use case without wasted words.

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?

For a read-only related-bills lookup with a complete schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient. It lacks an explicit description of return values since there is no output schema, but the tool's purpose and scope are adequately conveyed.

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 all four parameters are already documented with descriptions (congress, bill_type, bill_number, limit). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so a baseline score of 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 uses specific verbs ('Find', 'Identifies') and clearly specifies the resource ('related/companion bills'), detailing three categories: House-Senate companion bills, identical bills, and bills with related provisions. This effectively distinguishes it from other congress bill tools like congress_bill_details or congress_bill_actions.

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 phrase 'Useful for tracking legislation across chambers' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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