get_bill_related_bills

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 adds useful behavior details: returns a JSON-formatted string with related type/number, and raises a Chinese error message string on exceptions. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any edge cases (e.g., empty results), which would be valuable for an agent.

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 extremely terse and well-structured: one-sentence purpose plus simple Args/Returns/Raises sections. Every line earns its place, no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, argument, return format, and error handling. It adequately supports invocation. It lacks usage context beyond the obvious, but the output schema (if present) and the clear purpose compensate for this. Minor gap: no mention of what '相關議案' means in scope.

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% and the Args block repeats the schema's property description verbatim ('議案編號，必填，例: 203110077970000'), adding no new semantic information beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with '取得特定議案的相關議案列表' — a specific verb ('取得') and resource ('特定議案的相關議案'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_bill (single bill) or list_bills (all bills). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies usage (when you need related bills for a given bill), but it does not contrast with sibling tools like get_bill or list_bills, leaving the agent to infer context.

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