issue_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that sub-query failures are preserved as [PARTIAL] warnings, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention potential latency or rate limits, or describe what happens on total failure. The partial-failure note adds some transparency but not full behavioral coverage.

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 two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists the combined data sources and the partial-failure behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. It is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's high-level function and partial-failure handling, and an output schema exists to define the return format. However, it does not explain the parameters or clarify jurisdictional scope (though 'National Assembly' implies Korea). Given the complexity of a workflow tool and the lack of parameter documentation, more detail is needed for full completeness.

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 explain the parameters. It only implicitly references 'topic' via 'legislative topic' but does not describe the 'age' or 'limit' parameters at all. Their purpose (likely filtering by age and result cap) is left entirely to inference. This is a significant gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 states the tool generates a 'workflow-type brief' on a legislative topic and enumerates the data sources it combines (bills, committees, schedules, reports, voting signals). This distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like get_bill_details or search_meetings, which focus on one data type. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where a user should prefer a specific sibling tool (e.g., 'use get_bill_details for a single bill'). The usage context is only implicitly that this is for a comprehensive brief, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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