congress_recent_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the definition of 'law' (bills signed by the President) and notes the optional filter, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or result ordering. It adds modest context beyond annotations.

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 fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional filter is mentioned clearly. 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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (recently enacted laws). It could mention pagination or result format, but annotations cover safety and the simplicity reduces the need for more detail. Slightly more could be added, but it is sufficient.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, congress, law_type). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 recently enacted laws (bills signed by the President), with an optional filter by law type. This verb+resource+scope is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like congress_law_details (specific law details) and congress_search_bills (searching bills).

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 (finding recent laws) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as congress_law_details or congress_search_bills. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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