congress_member_bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the scope (sponsored or cosponsored) and the required ID context, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or sorting behavior. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second gives the prerequisite and a pointer to the sibling tool. Ideal structure.

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 tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It doesn't describe the return payload, but no output schema exists and the task is straightforward. The only minor gap is lack of distinction from other member/bill tools, but purpose clarity covers that.

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 three parameters (type, limit, bioguide_id) documented. The description only adds the hint to use congress_search_members to find the bioGuide ID, which is marginal beyond the schema's examples. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bills sponsored or cosponsored by a specific member of Congress'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_search_members (which finds the member) or congress_bill_cosponsors (which lists cosponsors of a bill). It fully explains the tool's function.

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?

It states the prerequisite (member's BioGuide ID) and directly references congress_search_members to obtain it. Itimplies the use case (finding a member's sponsored/cosponsored bills) but does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools for related queries, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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