committee_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds minor context: 'ctx: MCP context (injected automatically)' and 'Returns: Full decision text or error'. This provides a bit of behavioral detail (auto-injection, error possibility) but does not go beyond what annotations already cover in terms of side effects.

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 a purpose line, an args list, and a returns line. It is concise and easy to scan, with no unnecessary words. The inclusion of a Korean translation adds clarity for the target domain, and the list format aids quick parsing.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (read-only retrieval with four simple parameters and no output schema), the description is largely complete: it specifies the return type and error possibility. It does not detail potential error scenarios or page limitations, but for a straightforward read action, this level of detail is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit 'Returns' line.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: committee (same as committee_search), id (decision serial number), oc (optional override), and type (JSON/XML/HTML). This goes beyond the schema's bare types. However, 'oc' remains vague ('OC override' without elaboration), which prevents a full score.

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's function: 'Retrieve committee decision full text' with a Korean equivalent. It specifies the resource (committee decisions) and the action (retrieve full text), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like committee_search which likely handles searching. The phrase 'full text' clarifies the output granularity.

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 implies usage context by noting 'committee: Committee name (same values as committee_search)', linking it to its search sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use after committee_search to retrieve details') or any exclusions. The guidance is more inferred than directly stated.

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