search_bills

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: two identifiers returned (BILL_NO, BILL_ID) with specific downstream usage, client-side date filtering with performance implications, coverage of bill propose-reason texts via external package, and the return format in 'Returns' section. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 and front-loaded with critical info (purpose, identifiers, workflow). However, it contains some redundancy with bilingual content and a slightly lengthy note about the external package. Still, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids 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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers all aspects: purpose, scope, parameters, behavioral quirks, return fields, and integration with sibling tools. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to make mistakes.

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 the description must explain all parameters. It does so comprehensively in the 'Args' section: each parameter has description, optionality, expected format (if applicable), examples for bill_name/proposer/committee, enum values for proc_result, client-side note for propose_dt_from/to, and defaults/limits for page/page_size. This is ideal.

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 searches for member-sponsored bills (의원발의안), distinguishes from government-submitted bills (정부제출안은 별도), and explicitly calls itself the 'PRIMARY entry point for most bill-related queries.' The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance: it's the primary entry point, covers only member-initiated bills (not government-submitted), and includes a typical workflow referencing sibling tools (get_bill_detail, get_bill_proposers, etc.). It also notes limitations (date filtering applied client-side) and performance trade-offs.

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