get_bill_doc_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the return format (JSON), error handling (Chinese error messages), and possible empty responses with reasons. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, but the description implies a safe read operation. This meets basic transparency.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, notes, raises). It is front-loaded with the goal. However, the Args and Returns sections are redundant with the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage pattern, return format, and error cases. The recommendation to check existence adds context. It is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter bill_no with full description coverage. The description repeats the same example without adding new semantics or constraints beyond the schema. Thus, it adds no extra value.

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 it retrieves the HTML content list of documents for a specific bill. It uses the verb '取得' (get) and specifies the resource as '文件 HTML 內容列表'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bill (bill details) and get_bill_meets (meetings).

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 Notes section recommends using get_bill_detail first to confirm bill existence, providing explicit usage guidance. However, it does not elaborate on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond that one suggestion.

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