congress_bill_summaries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the summaries are plain-English, non-partisan, and multiple versions may exist (as introduced, reported, passed). This gives the agent insight into the nature and variability of the returned data.

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 core purpose, and includes only relevant additional context about CRS summaries. There is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (summaries) and that there may be multiple versions. It does not specify the response structure or pagination, but given the straightforward nature of the tool and the existing annotations, the description is sufficiently 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 minimal descriptions for all three parameters ('Congress number', 'Bill type', 'Bill number'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any further meaning about how these parameters should be used or formatted, so it does not exceed the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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: 'Get CRS summaries of a bill.' It specifies the resource (CRS summaries), the target (a bill), and adds context about the summaries being plain-English and non-partisan. This distinguishes it from sibling congress_* tools that focus on bill text, actions, or amendments.

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 the tool is used to retrieve summaries for a specific bill identified by congress, bill type, and bill number. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like congress_bill_details or congress_summaries_search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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