get_legislative_reports

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. '조회합니다' indicates a read-only search action and the limit parameter clarifies result-count behavior, but the description does not disclose ordering, pagination, error behavior, or any access limitations.

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 purpose-first: one sentence for scope, one for use case, and a short Args list. Every sentence contributes without repetition or filler.

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 only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, use context, and parameter semantics sufficiently. It could be more complete by mentioning ordering or filtering behavior, but nothing essential is missing for a straightforward keyword search.

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%, but the description's Args section defines both parameters: keyword with example values ('종합부동산세', '인공지능') and limit as result count with default 5. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') with a concrete resource: National Assembly professional reports (e.g., NABO Focus) and news related to a topic or bill. It also clarifies the distinguishing value ('전문가의 분석 시각'), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 gives a clear context for use: '단순 법안 정보를 넘어 전문가의 분석 시각을 제공할 때 유용합니다.' This tells an agent when the tool is valuable, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name concrete alternatives.

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