assembly_meeting_speeches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses unusually specific behavior: per-member grouping, transcript paragraph formatting ([안건N] 발언, ↳ 답변자), and truncation with a truncated=true signal tied to max_chars_per_member. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or ordering guarantees, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then output shape, then the truncation caveat, then the members modifier. Every sentence carries information, though the middle two could be merged for tighter structure.

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 explain the return shape, and it does: party/district plus per-agenda transcript blocks, reply lines, and a truncated flag. What remains uncovered is modest, mainly ordering and whether non-member attendance data is included.

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 beyond the schema: selecting members changes the default behavior of both with_replies and the truncation budget. It does not explain include_chair or the truncation boundary semantics, so it is above baseline but not exhaustive.

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: groups 회의록 전문 (record.assembly.go.kr) by 의원 and returns 발언 원문. This is clearly distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like assembly_bills or assembly_votes, though it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, assembly_speech_clips.

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?

The description implies usage through the members behavior ("특정 의원을 members 로 고르면 장관·증인 답변(replies)도 함께 준다"), which tells the agent one useful invocation pattern. However, it never says when to use this instead of assembly_speech_clips or other speech-related siblings, and gives no prerequisites beyond the schema's confer_num reference.

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