congress_bill_titles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is clear. However, the description does not address potential pitfalls like the 'limit' parameter (which contradicts 'get all'), authentication needs, or error scenarios. The discrepancy between 'get all' and a limit parameter reduces transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and includes a concrete example without extraneous words. 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 no output schema, the description explains the expected output and provides a usage example. However, it omits details about the 'limit' parameter, pagination behavior, and error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the output includes various title types, but it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 specific title types (short, official, display, text version), and provides a concrete usage example ('Inflation Reduction Act'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like congress_bill_details or congress_bill_subjects.

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 tool is used to find popular names or multiple title variations, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when bill subjects or summaries are needed. No exclusion conditions or comparative context are provided.

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