search_meetings

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a list of minutes and schedules ('회의록 및 일정 목록'), which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations available, the description does not fully carry the burden: it omits details such as read-only nature, authentication needs, default date-range behavior, or pagination edge cases. For a simple search tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 an introductory sentence, Args block, and Returns block. It is appropriately sized for the tool and every line adds value. There is no padding or 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?

The description is complete enough for a caller to invoke the tool correctly: all parameters are explained, defaults are stated, and the return type is summarized. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields do not need to be enumerated. It lacks contextual guidance about alternatives, but that is a separate dimension.

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, and it does. Every parameter is described with meaningful detail: bill_id has an example, committee_name has an example, date parameters have an explicit format, and page/limit have default values. This far exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 searches for committee meeting information ('위원회 회의 정보를 검색합니다') and lists relevant filters. It is a clear action+resource statement, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_plenary_schedule or get_committee_info.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when this should be preferred over related tools, nor any exclusion conditions or complementary use cases.

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