analyze_legislator

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses internal chaining, truncation at 500 bills, and handling of name ambiguity (first result, all matches). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the composite nature and 'analyze' verb imply no 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 labeled sections (When to use, Note, Args, Returns). It is longer than minimal but each sentence adds value; no filler.

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 tool complexity (chaining two tools, multiple return fields), the description covers all important aspects: usage, return structure with examples, error handling, and limitations. The output schema exists, but description still adds clarity on specific fields.

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?

Despite context showing 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed parameter guidance: name is required with Korean examples, assembly has default '22' and supported range. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic title.

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 it is a one-shot legislator profile that chains get_member_info and search_bills, providing a complete picture. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the chained tools and explicitly positioning itself as an alternative to separate calls.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (needing complete picture in one call) and when not to (instead of separate calls). Also includes a note about the 500-bill limit, helping the agent set expectations.

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