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 burden. It mentions the return format (JSON string) and error behavior (Chinese error message), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only (though it's clearly a query tool). The description adds some value but could be more explicit about the nature of the operation.

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. It's concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is a bit long but necessary given 14 parameters. No wasted words.

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 complexity (14 params, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format and error handling. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. It could mention pagination behavior more explicitly, but overall it's adequate for a query tool with good schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters with descriptions and examples. The description repeats the parameter list but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves meeting records related to a specific bill (特定議案的相關會議列表), with a specific required parameter (bill_no) and example. It distinguishes from siblings like get_meet_bills (which likely retrieves bills for a meeting) and get_bill (bill details).

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 lists all filter parameters and provides examples, making it clear when to use this tool (to get meetings for a bill). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the tool's purpose are clear enough. A slight deduction for not explicitly contrasting with get_meet_bills or get_bill_related_bills.

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