congress_bill_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the full timeline and includes roll-call vote numbers when available, which is useful context about the response content. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The prerequisite instruction is concise and actionable.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and a clear schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how to obtain the necessary identifiers. No output schema exists, but the description covers the expected content adequately.

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 100%, so all parameters (congress, bill_type, bill_number, limit) are documented in the schema. The description adds a usage hint about using congress_search_bills to find the parameters, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full action history / timeline for a bill'), enumerates the content (introduction, committee, floor votes, amendments, signing) and mentions roll-call vote numbers. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like congress_bill_amendments and congress_bill_votes by focusing on the whole timeline.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use congress_search_bills first' to obtain the required parameters, which is a clear when-to-use directive. This also implicitly distinguishes from other bill-related tools that might not need that prerequisite.

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