congress_bill_summaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the content itself: the summaries are written by CRS analysts, are non-partisan, and may exist in multiple versions (as introduced, as reported, as passed). This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not address return format or pagination.

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 with no redundancy. The primary action and distinguishing content traits are front-loaded, and the note about multiple versions is concise and informative.

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 read-only fetch tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and highlights the key nuance of multiple versions. It could be more explicit about the response shape, but the safety profile is fully covered by annotations, making it complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema states; it does not explain congress numbering, bill type abbreviations, or how to obtain the bill number.

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 opens with 'Get CRS summaries of a bill,' a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like congress_bill_text or congress_bill_actions by emphasizing the summary nature and its plain-English, non-partisan characteristics. The mention of multiple versions further clarifies exactly what this tool returns.

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 the use case: whenever CRS summaries for a given bill are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to differentiate this from the many related congress_bill_* tools.

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