US Bill Details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns specific data fields and cites Congress.gov as source. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer, so it adds moderate value.

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 sentences, front-loading the verb and key parameters. Every sentence is necessary: first explains action and parameters, second lists returned fields and source. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has three required parameters and an output schema (implied by listed fields). The description covers the main return fields, source, and identification logic. It is sufficiently complete for a lookup tool, though it could mention that bill types beyond 'hr/s' are supported (as schema expands).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for congress, type, and number. The description summarizes by Congress number, type (hr/s), and bill number, but is slightly reductive by using only 'hr/s' when the schema includes six types (hr, s, hjres, etc.). This could cause minor confusion. With full schema coverage, baseline 3; description adds marginal value.

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 'Get', the resource 'full details for a specific US bill', and the identifying parameters (Congress number, type, bill number). It lists returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like congress.legislation.bills (likely listing/searching) by focusing on a single bill's detailed data.

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 full details of a specific bill are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like congress.legislation.bills (for searching/listing) or congress.legislation.members. Without explicit guidance, the agent must infer usage context from the resource name and returned fields.

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