get_legislative_record

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the returned content includes the full text plus related items (sponsors, review progress, related documents, public comment deadlines, draft comparison tables), which is meaningful context. However, it says nothing about permissions, access restrictions, or what happens if an unsupported ID prefix is passed.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short Args block; front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is somewhat long due to the parenthetical breakdown of each record type, but every clause adds useful retrieval context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 1-parameter tool, the description supplies the record types, the id source, and the content the agent can expect to retrieve. It omits only permissions or fallback/error behavior, which would complete the picture.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the accepted id formats (bill:…, gazette:…, draft:…, lispdf:…) and their meaning, which is valuable beyond the bare 'record_id' schema string, though it doesn't cover the format for every possible prefix (e.g., what exactly a gazette id looks like).

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?

States a specific verb+resource (取得立法紀錄全文) and enables the agent to distinguish it from its siblings by enumerating the supported record_id prefixes (bill, gazette, draft, lispdf) and their contents. It does not mention get_legislative_history except as a producer of its argument, so the boundary with that sibling is only implicit.

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?

It clearly states where record_id values come from (search_legislative_records, get_legislative_history) and what kinds of records are accepted. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this lookup versus other retrieval tools, but for a lookup-by-id tool the usage context is made clear.

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