get_bill_meets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string and raises exceptions with Chinese error messages. However, it does not mention non-return side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The read-only nature is implied ('取得') but not explicitly stated, which is adequate but not rich.

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 Args, Returns, and Raises sections, front-loaded with the purpose statement. It is concise given the seven parameters, though the list is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure aids readability.

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 list tool with an output schema (indicated), the description adequately explains all parameters with examples, the return format (JSON with meeting details), and error handling. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively, though it could mention pagination behavior or result limits beyond the page/limit parameters.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description repeats but adds examples and structured formatting (Args section). Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value like example values and format hints, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '取得特定議案的相關會議列表' (retrieve the list of meetings related to a specific bill). The verb 'get' and resource 'bill's meetings' are specific and distinguished from sibling tools like 'get_bill' (bill details) and 'get_meet' (single meeting).

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 context by describing the tool as retrieving related meetings for a specific bill. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear enough given sibling names. It lacks explicit exclusions but is sufficient for basic guidance.

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