congress_bill_text

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns version types and format URLs, and implies (via the govinfo_bill_text reference) that it does not return full text content. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, includes concrete examples of version types, and provides a cross-reference to an alternative tool. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool with three required parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output (version types and format URLs), and provides an alternative for full text. No output schema exists, but the description adequately states what is returned, making it 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 three required parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving available text versions for a bill (e.g., introduced, reported, engrossed, enrolled) and returning version types and format URLs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from govinfo_bill_text, which provides full bill text content.

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 explicitly directs users to govinfo_bill_text when they need full bill text content, providing a clear alternative and establishing appropriate usage context. This guidance is specific and actionable.

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