get_bill_voting_results

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. It communicates the scope (본회의/plenary) and the output aggregation by party, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like missing data for certain bills, input format requirements beyond the example, or any errors, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single sentence states the purpose and output scope, followed by a one-line parameter definition. Every sentence earns its place without wasted text.

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 one-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential input (what bill_id is and its format) and the core output content. It does not explain selection criteria versus siblings, but that gap is already accounted for in usage_guidelines.

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?

Although the schema has no description for bill_id (0% coverage), the tool description directly explains it as the bill ID and provides a concrete format example ('PRC_...'). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema and is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 action (조회한다/query) and the resource (본회의 표결 결과 for a specific bill, including yes/no/abstention counts and party voting tendencies). It is specific and likely distinguishable from siblings like get_member_voting_history, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_voting_trends or get_member_voting_history. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over a sibling.

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