get_pending_bills

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 implies a read-only operation by describing a query and return of data, but does not explicitly state that no data is modified, deleted, or created. It would benefit from stating that the tool is idempotent and safe to call.

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 (English summary, when-to-use, args, returns). Every sentence adds value. The bilingual format is not redundant; the Korean targets local users. There is no wasted text.

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 no annotations and many siblings, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, parameter semantics, return value details (including fields like BILL_ID, count, total_count, has_more), and usage guidance distinguishing it from search_bills. The output schema is implied but not shown; however, the description covers return fields adequately.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds complete meaning to all six parameters: assembly (required, example '22'), bill_name (keyword filter), committee (e.g., '환경노동위원회'), proposer (representative proposer), page (default 1), and page_size (default 10). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the resource 'bills currently pending', and explicitly distinguishes pending bills from those already passed, rejected, or withdrawn. This precision makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from related tools.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'To see what legislation is currently active in a policy area' and 'To find unresolved bills on a topic'. It also directly contrasts with search_bills, which covers all outcomes. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as situations where pending bills are not relevant.

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