call_api_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pass-through behavior (no transformation), the UNIT_CD '1000xx' format trap, and the raw JSON string return. It does not mention auth, error behavior, or side effects, but for a read-style API caller the disclosed behaviors are useful.

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 longer than average but every block earns its place: purpose, usage procedure, format caution, and parameter definitions. The most important operational caveat (input passthrough and UNIT_CD) is prominent.

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?

For a raw API gateway tool, the description covers the full invoke path: how to find the service ID, how to pass params, and what is returned. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate response fields; still, a note on error behavior would make it 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: service_id is explained with a concrete example and params is described as a JSON query string with example. The critical UNIT_CD format is explicitly called out, which is exactly the kind of semantic detail the schema omits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: calls National Assembly OpenAPI directly, and clearly positions itself as the raw/low-level sibling to high-level tools like get_member_info and get_meeting_records. The 'universal backdoor' phrase and procedure make its role unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: consider this route whenever the intended high-level feature is missing, and provides a procedure (list_api_services → get_api_spec → call here). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which high-level tool should be preferred for a given case, so it falls short of a 5.

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