get_bill_detail

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like mutability, permissions, or rate limits. However, it clarifies the input parameter expectations (BILL_NO vs BILL_ID) and mentions the return of LINK_URL, which adds some transparency.

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 clear sections (Korean/English, when to use, not this tool, args, returns). It is informative without being overly verbose, though slightly on the longer side.

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's complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameter details, usage guidance, alternative tools, and limitations (bill text not available). It is fully self-contained.

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%, but the description provides rich context: explains what bill_no is (의안번호), gives an example, states it's required, clarifies it must be the 7-digit BILL_NO from other tools, not BILL_ID. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 retrieves comprehensive bill metadata including processing dates, committee referral, promulgation info, and a link to the official bill page. It differentiates from siblings by specifying what it does and does not do.

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 (after search_bills) and when not to use (for timeline use get_bill_review, for co-sponsors use get_bill_proposers). Also addresses missing functionality (bill full text) and suggests an alternative.

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