congress_bill_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing what the tool returns ('version types and format URLs') and signaling it lists available versions rather than guaranteeing content. This is especially useful since no output schema exists.

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 zero filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and output, the second sentence routes to the alternative. Front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 simple lookup tool with 3 well-schematized parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the main alternative. Minor gaps exist—no mention of pagination, limit behavior, or what happens when a bill has no text versions—but these don't prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 every parameter (congress, bill_type, bill_number) already has a schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level details such as format constraints or relationships, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 and resource: 'Get available text versions for a bill', and enumerates concrete version types (introduced, reported, engrossed, enrolled). It further clarifies that the tool returns metadata ('version types and format URLs') rather than the text itself, which distinguishes it from govinfo_bill_text without needing to inspect that sibling.

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 names the key alternative explicitly: 'For full bill text content, use govinfo_bill_text.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool (when full text is needed). However, the positive use case—when to pick this tool over other congress_* siblings—is only implied through the purpose statement rather than stated as an explicit 'use this when...' guideline.

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