openstates_bill_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Get' and 'Returns'. It further discloses the return scope (sponsors, actions, votes, documents), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), annotations cover safety, and the description lists key return categories. Without an output schema, this is adequate for an agent to invoke and interpret results. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical here.

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 already fully documents the single parameter with an example and source hint. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating 'OpenStates ID', so the 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 full details') and names the exact resource ('specific state bill by OpenStates ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openstates_bills (likely a list/search tool) and openstates_legislators, and the return contents are enumerated.

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 tool is for a specific bill when you already have an OpenStates ID, with an implicit prerequisite (retrieve ID from search results). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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