get_bill_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (has_more flag with instruction to call page+1) and lists return fields including processing result codes. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. Despite these omissions, the core behavioral aspects are adequately covered for a read-only query tool.

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 summary, NOT lists, when to use, args, returns). It is slightly verbose but each sentence contributes value. Front-loading the purpose and use cases helps quick scanning.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required), no enums, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides a thorough overview. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, return fields, pagination, and sibling differentiation, making it fully informative for correct selection and invocation.

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 fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, type, and constraints. It clarifies that bill_no is a numeric BILL_NO (not BILL_ID), provides examples for assembly and committee, and distinguishes optional from required fields. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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's purpose: retrieving bill processing timeline information. It uses both Korean and English summaries ('의안 처리·심사정보를 조회합니다', 'Get the high-level processing timeline') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools with a 'NOT this tool' section listing alternatives like get_bill_committee_review, get_bill_detail, and get_member_votes.

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 tool description provides explicit guidance on when to use it ('To see the overall legislative timeline', 'To filter bills by committee') and when not to use it, with direct references to sibling tools for specific use cases. This enables the AI to select the correct tool based on the task.

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