govinfo_bill_text

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: bills range from 5k to 500k+ chars, default limit is 100k, version suffixes explained, and preview_only behavior described. No contradiction with 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 fairly long but well-structured with paragraphs and bullet points. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., version suffixes explained twice), but overall it is efficient and maintains clarity.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and constraints (size, versions, preview). It does not detail the exact return format (e.g., plain text or JSON structure), but the context of a text retrieval tool is well covered. Minor gap in output description.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, but the description adds extra meaning: e.g., explains that max_length default handles most bills, and bills range from 5k to 500k+ chars, which aids parameter selection beyond schema alone.

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 it retrieves the full legislative text of a bill, specifying it contains actual law language with section numbers, dollar amounts, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tool congress_bill_summaries by advising to try that first for quick summaries, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: recommended as a fallback after congress_bill_summaries, and only when exact language or specific provisions are needed. It also advises using preview_only=true first to check bill size, setting clear usage context.

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