govinfo_bill_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds crucial behavioral context: bills can range from 5k to 500k+ characters, the default limit is 100k, and version suffixes determine which version of the bill is retrieved. It also mentions the preview_only behavior for checking size, which is not in annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that max_length=0 fetches the entire bill, but the schema covers that.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs: first defines the tool's purpose, then provides usage guidance with the sibling, then a practical tip on previewing, and finally version explanations. Front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (6 parameters, multiple versions, variable output size), the description is comprehensive. It addresses when to use it, how to avoid overwhelming responses, and the version system. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 every parameter (congress, bill_type, bill_number, version, max_length, preview_only) is already documented in the schema. The description adds context by mentioning the range of bill sizes and default limit, which helps interpret max_length. It also explains version suffixes (enr, eh, es, etc.) in human terms, reinforcing the schema's enum description. This adds value but the schema does most of the heavy lifting, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 gets the full legislative text of a bill, specifying it includes section numbers, dollar amounts, legal citations, and provisions. It distinguishes itself from congress_bill_summaries by contrasting with a quick CRS summary, and implicitly differentiates from congress_bill_amendments and other text tools by focusing on full bill text.

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?

Explicitly instructs to try congress_bill_summaries first for quick summaries and only use this tool when exact legislative language, provisions, or dollar amounts are needed. Also provides a practical tip to use preview_only=true to check size before loading, which guides when to use the tool effectively.

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