congress_search_bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds return fields (bill number, title, sponsor, latest action, status) but does not disclose any further behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, or required authorization. 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 and well-structured, with the purpose stated in the first sentence, return values in the same sentence, and helpful reference lists (congress numbers and bill types) following. Every sentence provides useful information 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters but no output schema, the description compensates well by stating the return fields and providing crucial lookups for congress numbers and bill types. The schema handles the remaining parameter details. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use this tool effectively.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema by mapping congress numbers to year ranges (e.g., 118th = 2023-2024) and expanding on the bill type abbreviations (hr, s, etc.), which helps the agent interpret those parameters correctly.

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 ('Search for bills in Congress') and clearly identifies the resource (bills) and the scope (by keyword, congress number, or bill type). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like congress_bill_details by focusing on search, not details on a specific bill.

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 on what this tool does and the search criteria, making it obvious when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward enough that no exclusions are needed.

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