get_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation fetches details (read) and lists included fields. However, it does not disclose limitations, error handling, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and requirements. It is front-loaded with the action. It could be structured with bullet points for clarity, but it is already concise.

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 tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context (what it does and what it returns). However, it lacks details on parameter formats, output structure, and error behavior, leaving some uncertainty.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the three required parameters but does not explain their meaning (e.g., jurisdiction format, session format, identifier format). The additional value over the schema is minimal.

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 action ('Fetch full detail'), the resource ('a single state bill'), and the included fields ('actions, versions, sponsors, subjects'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'recent_bills' (list vs detail) and 'search_entities' (search vs fetch 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 explicitly requires 'jurisdiction, session, and identifier', indicating the parameters needed. It implies usage when needing detailed information on a specific bill, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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