assembly_publications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: title/div use partial matching and results are sorted by 작성일 descending. It does not mention pagination beyond the schema's limit, or whether date filters are inclusive, but the matching and ordering semantics are the important traits here.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and where, then matching/sorting behavior, then the div filtering tip. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

For a six-optional-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers scope, matching rules and result ordering, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps (date inclusivity, page-vs-limit behavior) remain but are low-risk.

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 value: it clarifies that query (제목) and div (구분) are partial-match fields, and it names concrete div values (이슈와 논점, NABO Focus, 최신외국입법정보) that go beyond the schema's single example. Date range and source semantics are left to the schema.

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 verb (검색) and resource (국회 소속기관 발간물) and enumerates the five issuing institutions, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like assembly_bills or assembly_search, but the resource is distinctive enough to separate them.

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 by the description (search publications, filter by institution via source, by category via div), and the div examples give practical routing hints. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison to assembly_search or assembly_bills, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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