congress_recent_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds that results show 'legislation that has become law,' which is helpful but does not disclose nuances such as how 'recent' is defined (e.g., current Congress default) or default pagination. For a simple read-only list tool with annotations, this is adequate 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get,' and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the optional filter without rambling.

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 3 optional params, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and the key filter. The minor gap is not defining 'recently' (e.g., default to current Congress or a time window), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 each parameter (limit, congress, law_type) having clear descriptions and defaults/enums. The tool description merely restates the law_type filter ('public or private') without adding new details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 and resource: 'Get recently enacted laws (bills signed by the President).' It clearly distinguishes this from bill search or law details by defining the scope as enacted laws with an optional filter by law type. This is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like congress_search_bills or congress_law_details.

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 clear context: use this when you need recently enacted laws, optionally filtered by public/private type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use congress_search_bills for broader bill search'), but the specificity of 'recently enacted' implies appropriate use. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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