congress_bill_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the categories of related bills it finds, which is useful behavioral context about the scope of results. However, it doesn't disclose output format, pagination, or any side effects beyond the annotation coverage. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 fluff, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence identifies the action and resource, the second adds detail and usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the core functionality and its purpose clearly. It lacks an explicit statement of return type (likely a list) but the limit parameter and tool name imply a list of bills. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it and what to expect, though a note about output shape would be nice.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (congress, bill_type, bill_number, limit) having a description. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'related/companion bills', then specifies the concrete types: House-Senate companion bills, identical bills, and bills with related provisions. This is specific and distinguishes it from other congress_bill_* tools that focus on actions, text, or summaries.

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 final sentence, 'Useful for tracking legislation across chambers', provides a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among the many congress tools. It gives context without exclusions.

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