get_bills_by_deputy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'abstracts the process of querying bills' which hints at simplification, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling beyond the generic 'APIResponse', or whether this is a read-only operation. The return type description is basic and lacks detail on response structure.

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 a clear purpose statement, helper context, and separate Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the helper note into the purpose, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks completeness for a tool with no annotations. It doesn't cover authentication, error specifics, or behavioral constraints, and while the output schema exists, the description's return explanation is vague ('APIResponse object'). For a helper tool abstracting queries, more context on limitations or performance would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully adds meaning for both parameters: 'deputy_id' is explained as 'the ID of the deputy authoring the bill', and 'years' is clarified with format details ('list[str]'), default behavior ('current year if None'), and optionality. This goes significantly beyond the bare schema, though it could specify year format (e.g., 'YYYY').

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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'list of bills by a specific author', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_deputy_by_name' and 'get_deputy_expenses' by focusing on bills authored by deputies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'call_endpoint' which might be a more general alternative.

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 usage when needing bills by a deputy author, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'call_endpoint' or other sibling tools. The 'helper tool' phrase suggests abstraction benefits, but lacks concrete when/when-not scenarios or prerequisite context.

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