get_bill_proposers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns proposer details (name, party, role) and the required bill_id format. Although it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, the purpose implies no side effects. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds sufficient context beyond what annotations would provide.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections: Korean/English purpose, when to use, important note, args, returns. Front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers input requirements (bill_id) and output structure (proposers list with fields, count, total_count). Provides usage context and examples. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description must compensate. It provides a detailed explanation of the bill_id parameter: format example, distinction from bill_no, and where to obtain it (from search_bills or get_pending_bills). This adds significant meaningful context beyond the 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('complete list of proposers for a bill'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it returns proposer details including name, party, and role.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section provides two specific scenarios: after search_bills and for co-sponsorship network analysis. Also clearly warns about the BILL_ID vs BILL_NO distinction, telling agents when not to use this tool.

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