search_bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, yet the description still adds real value: the default is "fast" and returns candidates plus status, broad document requests can time out, and limit is a ranked quick-selection size rather than an enumeration guarantee. That last caveat is unusually valuable for setting agent expectations about result completeness.

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 core purpose and routing guidance are front-loaded and each sentence contributes. Minor blemishes: stray Markdown backticks around ``limit`` and a long multi-clause sentence that could be split.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the key decision points (bilingual query, document inclusion, timeout avoidance). The omission is the meaning of the status/committee/assembly_term filters, which an agent would have to guess.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains korean_query, include_documents, and limit's ranking semantics well, but status, committee, and assembly_term receive no explanation at all, leaving nearly half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search live bills") and notes the bilingual query basis, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It also contrasts itself with get_bill_status, though the word "live" (currently pending vs. all bills) is left slightly ambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: use korean_query when the English subject is a proper noun outside the glossary, and set include_documents=true only for small targeted searches. It names the alternative path (get_bill_status per bill) and the failure mode (broad requests timing out) that selects it.

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