assembly_bill_detail

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a genuinely important edge case: when the alternative cannot be matched by committee and processing date, the 'alternative' field degrades to a guidance string rather than data, and the agent must switch strategies. It never states read-only/no-side-effect status or how a missing bill is signalled, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned content before the conditional edge cases, and no sentence is redundant. The alternative-matching sentence is dense with nested parentheticals and reads closer to implementation detail than agent guidance, but it does justify why a lookup can fail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe the return shape, and it does so field by field while also handling the alternative-bill cases. The one real omission is that both parameters are optional in the schema yet the description never says at least one identifier is needed, leaving an agent able to call it with no arguments.

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 100% (bill_id as 의안ID/PRC_…, bill_no as 의안번호), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description only indirectly touches parameters, via the note that votes are keyed on the alternative's bill_id, and says nothing about when to prefer bill_id over bill_no or what happens if both are omitted.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its contents (stage-by-stage dates/results, proposal reason, proposer list ordered with the lead sponsor first, committee deliberation meetings), so an agent knows exactly what a successful call yields. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling assembly_bills list tool, which is what keeps it from a 5.

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 gives concrete downstream routing: for a vote, call assembly_votes with the alternative bill's bill_id, and if the alternative lookup fails, fall back to assembly_bills with proposer_kind=위원장. What it doesn't state is the primary selection rule (fetch details for one bill here vs. list/search bills in assembly_bills).

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