search_openstates_bills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that results are unverified leads and must be checked against official sources before acceptance. It also identifies the external data source, though it doesn't cover output format, pagination behavior, or rate limits.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and follows with the critical caveat, making efficient use of limited space.

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?

This is a 15-parameter tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The current description only establishes the source and the discovery caveat; it is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct valid queries or interpret results.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. Some parameters like sort and include are partially self-explanatory through enums, but many others such as classification, action_since, jurisdiction, and identifier lack format or value guidance, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search Open States v3') and a clear intended purpose ('for discovery leads'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_official_source and search_nyc_legistar_matters, which target different sources or verification workflows.

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 frames when this tool is appropriate: it is for discovery only, not final verification, and results must be pivoted back to official sources before watchlist acceptance. This gives clear context and an implicit exclusion, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly.

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