search-bills-by-name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the result limit (up to 20) and recency (most recent), but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. As a search tool, the behavioral profile is mostly obvious, but the description adds minimal extra context.

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 consists of two concise sentences with clear front-loading. Every word is purposeful and no extraneous information is present.

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 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description states it returns 'Knesset matches' but does not specify what fields are included (e.g., bill ID, name, status). Given the lack of output schema, the description should provide more detail about return values to be fully complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that the keyword searches bill names. No value is added for parameters like knessetNum.

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 searches bills by keyword in their name and returns up to 20 most recent Knesset matches. The verb 'search' and resource 'bills by name' are specific, and the behavior distinguishes from sibling tools that filter by status, type, or stage.

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 a keyword is available to search bill names, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list-bills-by-status or list-bills-by-type. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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