search_bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered with newest Knesset first, and each result includes its status in words. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect from the response.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function and filter dimensions, the second adds ordering and result content, and the final clause routes to get_bill for deeper detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, how results are ordered, what each result includes, and how to get more detail. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention pagination (top/skip) or the default result count, but those are visible in the schema with defaults. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of filter dimensions but doesn't add detail beyond the schema for individual parameters. The 'text' parameter has an example in the schema, and 'status_id' has an example. The description's mention of 'status in words' hints at the status_id parameter's meaning but doesn't add significant new semantics. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('bills'), and enumerates the filter dimensions (name, Knesset, status, type, initiator). It also distinguishes itself from get_bill by noting that search returns summaries and get_bill provides the full story. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bill and find_person.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find bills by various criteria, and it explicitly points to get_bill for full details of a single bill. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like find_person for person lookup, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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