lookup_bill

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the call is paid ($0.005) and requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY. This is important behavioral context that the annotations do not convey, and it directly affects whether an agent should proceed with the call.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the cost and official-status nature, then lists the return fields, the addressing parameters, and the required credential. Every part of the 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?

Given the simple parameter set, complete schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description supplies the remaining critical context: what data is returned, how to identify a bill, and the financial/credential prerequisites. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields well enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters with examples, so the baseline is appropriate. The description reinforces the addressing pattern by naming congress number, type, and bill number, but it does not add meaning materially beyond what the schema already covers.

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 identifies the tool as a lookup for official status of a US Congress bill, listing the exact fields returned (title, sponsor, latest action, policy area, committees, counts). The explicit verb 'lookup' plus the resource scope distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all in different domains like trade filings or contracts.

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 gives concrete addressing instructions: use congress number, bill type, and bill number. It also notes the payment and wallet-key requirement, which is essential before calling. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, but none of the listed siblings appear to be comparable bill-lookup tools.

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