congress_bill_titles

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 that titles come from different text versions, which is useful. It doesn't mention pagination or the limit parameter's effect, but that's partially in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core function, then a concrete example. No wasted words. The example is particularly valuable for an agent trying to understand the tool's purpose.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It doesn't describe the return structure, but that's not required without an output schema. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination behavior explicitly.

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 the schema already documents congress, bill_type, bill_number, and limit. The description adds the concept of title types but doesn't explain parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves all titles for a bill, enumerates the title types (short, official, display, version-specific), and gives a concrete use case (finding popular names like 'Inflation Reduction Act'). This distinguishes it from sibling bill tools like congress_bill_summaries or congress_bill_details.

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 when to use this tool: when you need title variants or the popular name of legislation. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list is large and the use case is specific enough. It could be improved by noting it's not for full bill text or summaries.

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