get_committee_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool 'retrieves' data and lists arguments/returns. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, what happens when both committee_name and committee_code are omitted or passed together, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the Args section is tidy. The Returns sentence is nearly an exact repetition of the first sentence, which is mild redundancy, but otherwise every line earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description covers the basic call signatures. However, it leaves open how the optional parameters interact (e.g., committee_name + committee_code together, or neither) and provides no guidance on list vs. detail selection conditions.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: it gives each parameter a Korean label, provides an example for committee_name, specifies the code format (HR_DEPT_CD), and explains page/limit meaning. This is well beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and names the resource (committee info), and it distinguishes two modes: list vs. specific committee with member roster. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from sibling tools like get_committee_work_summary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no alternative tools are mentioned and no exclusion criteria are given. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is for committee list/detail lookup, with no comparison to siblings.

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