get_bill

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by describing the aggregate, hub-like nature of the response and connecting to get_vote for deeper vote detail. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single dense sentence that leads with the core purpose and then packs every meaningful content type into a readable list. The parenthetical routing to get_vote earns its place and the whole definition is efficient despite its breadth.

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 single-parameter, read-only getter with rich annotations, the description fully enumerates the return categories an agent needs to anticipate: status, history, sessions, votes, and document links. It also covers the natural follow-up path to get_vote. Nothing essential is missing.

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%: bill_id is described as 'KNS_Bill Id' and is required. The description adds no new semantic detail about where to find or format the bill_id, but at full schema coverage the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb plus resource: it retrieves 'everything about one bill,' then enumerates the concrete data categories included (status, initiators, history, sessions, votes, documents). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_bills and get_vote by emphasizing that this is the comprehensive single-bill endpoint.

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 makes the scope clear: use this when you need comprehensive details about one bill. It also provides a useful routing cue by directing the reader to get_vote for per-MK/party vote breakdowns. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus search_bills, but the context is strong enough to select correctly.

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