get_law_bills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly documents the return type ('str: JSON 格式'), the general content ('包含該法律相關的議案資訊'), and error behavior ('例外時回傳中文錯誤訊息字串'). The read-only nature is also clear from the wording '取得...列表', even though permissions and rate limits are not discussed.

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 opens with a one-sentence purpose summary, then uses a clear structured list of Args followed by Returns and Raises. It is long due to 20 parameters, but each parameter line is direct and the structure is easy to scan without unnecessary prose.

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 tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, marks the required one, documents defaults for pagination, specifies the return type, and notes error behavior. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide an example call, but this is a reasonably complete reference for a read-only query tool, especially with an output schema available.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The Args section largely duplicates the schema descriptions rather than adding new semantic meaning, such as filter combination logic, value constraints beyond examples, or output_fields formatting rules.

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 opening phrase '取得特定法律相關的議案列表' clearly states a specific verb (取得/list), resource (議案/bills), and scope (特定法律/related to a specific law). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_bills or get_bill because it emphasizes law-specific filtering via the required law_id parameter.

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 the tool is for querying bills associated with a specific law, especially since law_id is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_bills or get_bill, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools for different query needs.

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