Get Recently Sponsored Bills (Cross-Politician)

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that politicianSlug is null for ex-members. It also details the sponsor block structure. This provides useful behavioral insight without contradicting 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds key structural and requirement details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 has 3 optional parameters, full schema descriptions, an output schema, and low complexity, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, data structure (sponsor block), a special case (null slug), and authentication. No gaps for this simple list endpoint.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description is not required to repeat parameter details. However, it adds meaning by explaining the output structure related to parameters (e.g., the sponsor block details) and the null case for politicianSlug.

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 recently introduced bills across all congressional sponsors, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bills rather than legislators or votes, and the title adds 'cross-politician' to indicate aggregation.

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 mentions the requirement for CONGRESS_API_KEY, which is useful, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_politician_recent_trades or get_recent_congressional_votes. No explicit when-not or alternative scenarios are given.

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