assembly_bill_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: text is PDF-extracted, long bodies are chunked and continued via next_offset, and 검토보고서 is a 전문위원 issue/pro-con analysis (a substantive quality signal about the content). It does not state whether offset beyond the end is an error, whether metadata/links are returned alongside text, or how bill_id vs bill_no interact.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (what is listed, what 검토보고서 is, how to continue, how to handle 대안), with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler, though the verbless opening sentence costs a little immediate clarity.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must be self-sufficient, and it covers document types, PDF extraction, and pagination. It remains silent on how bill_id and bill_no are expected to combine (zero required params, so at least one is presumably needed), what the listing response looks like, and when the body is truncated. Adequate but with clear gaps for a five-parameter tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what 검토보고서 actually contains, ties next_offset to the offset parameter for continuation, and warns that 대안 must be re-fetched via original_bills' 의안번호. The one blemish is naming the field 'next_offset' while the schema parameter is 'offset', which could momentarily confuse an agent.

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 the exact resource (의안 첨부 문서 목록 + 선택 문서 본문) and enumerates the document types returned (의안원문, 검토보고서, 심사보고서, 체계자구검토보고서) along with the format (PDF/HWP 링크, PDF 추출). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic bill tools, though it never names a sibling like assembly_bill_detail to draw the boundary. The first sentence lacks an explicit verb, which slightly blurs the 'what it does' framing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the tool for reading a bill's attached documents, and the last sentence routes 대안(위원회안) lookups back through original_bills' bill number. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement versus assembly_bill_detail or assembly_bills. The doc/offset guidance is deferred to the schema rather than restated as when-to-use advice.

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