congress_bill_subjects

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description says 'Get' which is consistent. The description adds that the tool returns the primary policy area in addition to subjects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or the meaning of 'subjects' further. With annotations already covering safety, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by use cases. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and read-only nature, the description adequately explains what is returned (subjects and policy area) and gives use cases. It could mention how 'limit' affects results or clarify the output format, but for a bill-tagging lookup, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including 'congress', 'bill_type' with enum, 'bill_number', and 'limit'. The description references 'a bill' but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Get legislative subjects tagged on a bill, plus the primary policy area.' This uses a specific verb (get) and resource (bill subjects), distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_bill_titles or congress_bill_summaries that focus on other bill aspects.

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?

Description provides explicit use cases: 'Useful for finding all bills on a topic and for cross-referencing with lobbying data.' This gives applied context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Still, the usage guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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