get_assembly_info

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

The description does disclose that this tool returns basic server status, which is a behavioral trait. However, it spends most of its text on meta-advice and a broad API-access workflow, so the transparency is muddled. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden but only partially clarifies behavior.

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 poorly structured: it starts with a generic instruction block, includes a bold directive against saying features don't exist, and only at the end mentions what the tool actually returns. The text is longer than needed and buries the actual purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description could simply state the server status fields. Instead, it conflates tool-level instructions with system-level guidance, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual purpose and relationship to siblings.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are essentially moot. The schema already makes this clear with an empty properties object. The description adds a bit of context by mentioning 'basic server status', which is enough for a zero-parameter tool.

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 is internally contradictory. The tool name is 'get_assembly_info' and it says 'Returns basic server status', but the description mostly contains a meta-guide about using the full 270+ National Assembly OpenAPI via list_api_services → get_api_spec → call_api_raw. It does not clearly state a distinct purpose, and it reads like a system prompt rather than a tool description.

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?

It provides some usage guidance ('don't say this feature doesn't exist', use the combination workflow), but it does not clearly specify when to call get_assembly_info versus siblings. It actually introduces a separate workflow for other tools without tying it to when this specific tool should be used.

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