openstates_bills

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already assures a non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (bill identifiers, titles, sessions, sponsors) and that the search spans all state legislatures, which is not evident from annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the main action, the second lists the primary filters, and the third states the return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler text. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 search tool with 5 well-documented parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, the main filter dimensions, and the return fields. It does not explain pagination or result limits, but those are captured in the schema. It also doesn't mention integration with the sibling 'openstates_bill_detail', but this is not essential for basic invocation.

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 input schema describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including examples for query ('climate'), session ('2023-2024'), and jurisdiction ('ca'). The description restates these filters ('state (jurisdiction)', 'keyword query', 'legislative session') but adds little beyond the schema. The only mild addition is connecting 'state' to 'jurisdiction' explicitly, but the schema already says 'State abbreviation lowercase'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Search bills across all 50 state legislatures.' This specifies the scope (state-level, not federal) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'openstates_bill_detail' (single bill lookup) and 'congress_search_bills' (federal bills). The first sentence alone provides a precise, unambiguous 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching state-level bills across all 50 legislatures. It lists the key filter dimensions (state/jurisdiction, keyword, session). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the scope of 'all 50 state legislatures' implicitly differentiates it from federal congressional bill search tools and from bill detail tools.

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