congress_search_bills

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 the safety profile. The description adds the returned fields but does not disclose default behaviors (e.g., default limit of 20, default sort order) or pagination behavior, though these are present in the schema. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description adds modest value but could be richer.

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 plus two bullet-like lines, front-loading the core purpose and return fields. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 search tool with eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main search criteria (keyword, congress, bill type) and return fields. Pagination (offset/limit) and date filtering are described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. The added congress-year and bill-type mappings enhance completeness. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 documents each parameter. The description goes beyond by mapping congress numbers to years (118th, 119th, 117th) and expanding bill type abbreviations (hr=House, s=Senate, etc.), which adds practical meaning that the enum alone does not convey. This compensates for the otherwise generic parameter descriptions.

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 searches for bills by keyword, congress number, or bill type, and lists the return fields (bill number, title, sponsor, latest action, status). This distinguishes it from detailed bill tools like congress_bill_details, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 it is a search tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like congress_bill_details, congress_bill_actions, or congress_search_members. Given the large set of sibling congress tools, explicit differentiation would help an agent decide correctly. No exclusionary or alternative recommendations are given.

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