assembly_committee_meetings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the ~1-week publication lag, the audit-specific behavior (list appears first, full text later), and the data quirk that audit minutes have class '국정감사 회의록' with empty agenda fields. This is exactly the context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return shape, then the edge cases. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical about audit publication lag is dense enough to slow reading slightly.

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, so the description must explain returns and it does (grouped by confer_num with agendas). Combined with a fully documented schema this is nearly complete; only the semantics of committee filtering are left unstated.

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 the schema already documents from, to and committee including the 62-day range error. The description only implies date-range filtering and adds no syntax or semantics for the committee filter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (위원회 회의록 목록) and states exactly what is returned: meetings in a date range grouped by confer_num together with agendas. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling assembly_speech_clips, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to assembly_speech_clips for recent meetings, with the reason (minutes are published ~1 week later, and for audits only the list appears first). It gives clear positive usage context but does not mention the other near sibling, assembly_meeting_speeches.

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