assembly_bills

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two highest-risk behaviors: a silent default scope filter that hides chairman and government bills, and the fact that the 'total' figure ignores the from/to period. Remaining gaps are output shape and pagination semantics.

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?

Five short sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact: scope, sort order, default filter, escape hatch, and the total caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers search semantics and the main filtering trap well. The one real omission is return-value shape (what a bill record contains), which an agent cannot get from an absent output schema.

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, and the description earns above baseline by explaining proposer_kind's listing source and the automatic '…위원장' detection that links proposer to proposer_kind. It also clarifies that from/to do not affect total, which the schema does not say.

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 and resource ('제22대 법률안 검색') plus scope and ordering, so an agent immediately knows this is a search/list endpoint for 22nd-Assembly bills. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling assembly_bill_detail, but the search-vs-detail split is inferable from naming and behavior.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: default returns only member-proposed bills, and chairman/government bills require proposal_kind (with an auto-detect fallback when proposer ends in '…위원장'). That is a clear when-to-use path, though no sibling alternative is named for drilling into a specific bill.

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