assembly_openapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that this is a generic OpenAPI call and marks required request variables with an asterisk. It does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response contains.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and states the tool's role, but the body is a very long bullet list of service IDs and fields without grouping or formatting aids. The list appears necessary given the generic schema, yet it is dense and not optimally organized for quick scanning.

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?

This is a high-complexity generic API caller with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to explain more than service IDs and request fields. It omits return format, pagination semantics, error behavior, and how the generic tool relates to its many specialized siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates substantially by listing accepted service IDs and the per-service request variables, including which variables are required. It still does not explain the page and size parameters or the expected types and formats for the nested params values.

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 clearly states this is a generic OpenAPI caller for the Open Assembly Information service and lists concrete service IDs with their Korean resource names, so the agent can identify what each call retrieves. However, it never distinguishes this generic caller from the many dedicated sibling tools such as assembly_members, assembly_bills, and assembly_votes.

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 explains how to invoke the tool by passing a service ID and request variables, but gives no guidance on when to choose this generic tool over the dedicated sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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