lookup_bill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005) and auth requirement (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY), which are critical behavioral traits. It also specifies the output content. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only lookup, the 'official status' implies safe operation. Slight gap on pagination or error handling, but adequate for a simple lookup.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and cost, then details output and addressing, and closes with the auth requirement. No redundant words or filler. Every clause adds value.

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 only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return data, addressing, cost, and auth. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. No missing critical information for a simple lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds a general addressing pattern ('Address by congress number, type..., and bill number') and lists type examples, but these largely duplicate the schema. It provides a bit of context but does not significantly enrich beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving official status of a US Congress bill, specifying the exact data returned (title, sponsor, latest action, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by topic (bill lookup vs. trades, filings, contracts). The verb 'lookup' plus resource 'bill' is specific.

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 implicitly tells when to use: when you need bill status. It also provides prerequisites: requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY and costs $0.005, which are important usage conditions. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so no exclusions needed. Overall clear context.

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