congress_search_bills

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

The description adds context about congress numbers and bill types but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides (safe read). It lacks information on pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format, which are not covered by 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?

The description is concise: four sentences front-loading the purpose and then providing essential examples. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters all described in the schema, the description sufficiently covers return fields and provides examples. However, it could mention pagination (implicit via limit/offset) and that omitting congress searches all congresses, which is partially covered.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning—only provides examples of congress numbers and bill types, which are already in the schema. No additional semantics for date formatting or sort options are given.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'bills in Congress', and specifies search criteria (keyword, congress number, bill type). It also lists returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like congress_bill_details which focus on specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as congress_bill_details or congress_bill_full_profile. The description does not mention preconditions or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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