congress_bill_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as potential response size, recency of the 'current status', data source caveats, or rate limits, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single sentence immediately names the action and resource, then tacks on a compact list of included data. There is no filler or repetition of the schema, making this a model of concise, front-loaded documentation.

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 straightforward detail-by-identifier tool, the description's enumerated content list is adequate for selection and invocation, and the schema covers all required parameters. Since there is no output schema, some return-format detail is absent, but the description gives enough of a shape for an agent to know what it will receive.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline applies. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond calling the resource a 'specific bill'; it does not clarify formats such as 'hjres' or edge cases, but the schema already provides basic examples.

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 identifies the action (get detailed information) and the target resource (a specific bill), and it lists the major content sections: sponsors, cosponsors with party breakdown, actions, committees, and current status. This is enough to understand what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate it from overlapping siblings such as congress_bill_full_profile or granular siblings like congress_bill_actions, congress_bill_committees, and congress_bill_cosponsors.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need a composite bill overview, but it never states when to choose it over the granular congress_bill_* endpoints or congress_bill_full_profile. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the content list.

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