get_vote_results

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior with 'has_more: True이면 page+1로 재호출' and lists all return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any authentication requirements. Still, the behavior is well covered overall.

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 long but well-structured: a brief purpose statement, workflow steps, a 'NOT this tool' clarification, then parameter and return sections. It front-loads the purpose and workflow. While it contains useful detail, it could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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, no output schema provided, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the workflow, parameter semantics, return fields including pagination, and how it relates to sibling tools. No gaps remain for effective use.

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 compensates with detailed parameter explanations: it clarifies that 'assembly' is required, 'bill_no' is BILL_NO (number) not BILL_ID, 'bill_name' is a keyword filter, and provides examples. The return section also helps understand parameter usage. Could be more precise on data types for optional parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Get plenary vote results by bill (aggregate yes/no/abstain counts).' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_member_votes' by clarifying that this tool is for aggregate results and that individual member votes require a different tool.

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 outlines a clear workflow: step 1 is this tool, step 2 is get_member_votes. It explicitly states when not to use this tool ('For individual member votes → use get_member_votes') and explains that get_member_votes requires BILL_ID from this tool, providing clear guidance on tool sequencing.

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