get_member_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return type ('list of member information') and implies a read-only lookup via 'search'. However, it does not mention potential multiple matches, exact-match requirements, error behavior, or any limitations. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but leaves some behavior uncovered.

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 appropriately concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and organized with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the parameter meaning, and the return shape. The presence of an output schema means return details need not be duplicated. Minor gaps like handling of identical names or required-field errors remain, but they are not critical for correct use.

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 for the bare 'name' string parameter. It does so by defining 'name' as the member name and providing an example ('홍길동'), which is clear and actionable. It could add details like whether partial names are accepted, but the example and Semantics are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches detailed National Assembly member information. It also gives concrete use cases (sponsor, party, constituency), which clearly convey the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_member_voting_history or get_committee_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'when identifying who the sponsor is, affiliated party, constituency, etc.' This gives an agent a direct cue for selecting it. It does not mention similar alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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