congress_bill_titles

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the variety of titles returned and noting that titles can reflect different text versions. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the safety profile. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey functionality and use case. No redundant information is included, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action (Get all titles) followed by clarifying details and an example.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (types of titles) and provides a practical usage context. The parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and the description's level of detail is appropriate for this straightforward, read-only lookup tool.

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 all four parameters individually documented. The description itself does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying that the bill must be identified, which is already evident from the schema. Thus, the baseline 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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving all titles for a bill, enumerating the types of titles (short, official, display, and version-specific). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like congress_bill_details or congress_bill_summaries by focusing exclusively on title data. The inclusion of a concrete example ('Inflation Reduction Act') further reinforces purpose.

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 a clear use case (finding the popular name of legislation) and implies when to use this tool over others by emphasizing title-specific information. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of the highest standard.

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