bill_timeline

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 meaningful behavioral context: the output is a normalized timeline of a specific event set, and the presence of confidence fields implies some data is scored rather than fully authoritative, which is useful for the agent. But it never states read-only safety explicitly, explains why confidence varies, or discloses behavior around the 'age' parameter, leaving the disclosure partial.

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 two compact sentences with the primary function front-loaded and the sibling differentiation in the second sentence; there is no wasted or duplicated content. It loses a point only because the comparative phrasing ('기존 get_bill_history보다...') requires the agent to infer what the older tool lacks rather than stating it directly.

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?

With zero annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description must carry the full context burden, and it leaves a notable gap: the 'age' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the when-to-use vs get_bill_history guidance is implicit rather than a crisp decision rule. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanation, but an agent still lacks enough information to invoke the tool with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence on both parameters. It only implicitly maps bill_id to '특정 의안' (a specific bill) and says nothing at all about 'age' — an optional string parameter defaulting to null whose meaning (legislative term, data freshness, etc.) is completely ambiguous to an agent. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: '특정 의안의 발의, 위원회 회부, 회의, 본회의 표결, 최종 처리 이벤트를 정규화된 타임라인으로 반환합니다' (returns a normalized timeline of a bill's introduction, committee referral, meeting, plenary vote, and final processing events). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_bill_history by citing the added event_type/source_tool/confidence fields, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 second sentence directly names the alternative (get_bill_history) and states the differentiator: it exposes event_type/source_tool/confidence fields to make LLM follow-up verification easier, which gives clear context for when to prefer this tool. However, it stops short of explicitly declaring when NOT to use this tool or the precise condition that would route an agent to get_bill_history instead, so it falls just below the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.

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