search_bills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose important non-obvious behaviors: returning an empty array for no results and the automatic fallback to a previous assembly term. However, it does not address read-only nature, rate limits, permission requirements, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 well-structured with separate sections for 기능, Args, and Returns, and it front-loads the main purpose before detailing parameters. Each bullet and parameter listed earns its place, and the length is justified by the eight optional parameters and four usage modes. There is minimal redundancy.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return value structure. It covers the main invocation modes, parameter semantics, and the empty-array behavior, which is enough for a search tool. Remaining gaps include no examples of valid proc_status values and no explicit routing to sibling detail tools, but the overall context is adequate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section in the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains all eight parameters, including that keyword refers to bill title, bill_id accepts either unique ID or bill number, propose_dt uses YYYYMMDD, and proc_status is a processing status code. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, '의안을 검색하거나 목록을 조회합니다', and identifies the tool as an integrated search tool for bills. It clearly enumerates four search modes, making the core purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource and action are specific enough to distinguish it from detail/history tools.

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 four numbered call modes provide explicit guidance: keyword-only, filter combinations, no-params latest list, and automatic fallback from the 22nd to the 21st assembly. This goes well beyond a vague 'use for searching'. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or pointers to alternatives like get_bill_details, but the usage context is clear.

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