congress_member_bills

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 the behavioral detail that it returns bills sponsored or cosponsored, but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., default congress). Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate – it adds some context but not rich behavioral insight.

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 unnecessary words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in the second sentence. Every word 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 tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the core purpose, the required parameter, and how to obtain it. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the description makes clear it returns bills, and the agent can infer the structure from the domain.

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 all three parameters (type, limit, bioguide_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats that the bioguide_id is required and mentions 'sponsored or cosponsored' which mirrors the type enum. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, hence a baseline 3.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('bills sponsored or cosponsored by a specific member of Congress'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like congress_bill_cosponsors (which deals with a specific bill's cosponsors) and congress_search_members (which is about member lookup). The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the required parameter (BioGuide ID) and directs the agent to the sibling tool congress_search_members to obtain it. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives for bill-related queries beyond the ID lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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