get_bill_summary

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses internal behavior: it chains multiple API calls (up to 3 parallel), describes failure behavior (missing sections with error notes), and details the return structure including an errors field. This provides clear transparency beyond what any annotations would cover.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, note, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with key information. While a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple APIs). Minor room for tightening.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure with example fields for each section. It covers failure scenarios, parameter sourcing, and sufficient context for an agent to determine when and how to use this tool compared to its many siblings.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by providing examples (e.g., assembly: '22', bill_no: '2216983') and guidance to use the BILL_NO field from search_bills/get_pending_bills results. This adds critical context that the schema alone lacks.

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 it is a one-shot summary of a single bill, combining metadata, processing timeline, co-sponsors, and committee meeting history. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly listing the alternatives it replaces (get_bill_detail, get_bill_review, get_bill_proposers).

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 has a dedicated 'When to use' section, explicitly stating to use for a comprehensive view of one bill and not to call the individual tools separately. It also notes that up to 3 parallel API calls are made and that sections may be missing if sub-calls fail.

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