get_plenary_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and it adds meaningful context: empty results are frequent, and queries can be broadened by changing or omitting unit_cd. It also notes that omission may return all records. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a get-style lookup with an output schema, the disclosed quirks are sufficient.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and followed by a brief behavioral caveat and parameter list. There is some redundancy—unit_cd appears twice—and the Service ID is low-value noise, but overall the structure is easy to scan.

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 3-parameter read-only schedule lookup with an output schema, the description covers every parameter and the main data-absence quirk. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could more explicitly indicate when to choose this tool over sibling search or meeting tools.

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% and the schema only provides types and defaults, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining unit_cd as '대수' with an example, describing omission behavior, and labeling page/limit as pagination controls. The page/limit explanations are minimal but adequate.

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 opens with '본회의 일정을 조회합니다' (queries plenary session schedule), which clearly states the tool's verb and resource. It identifies a specific object—plenary schedule—but does not explicitly compare itself with sibling tools like search_meetings.

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 gives practical guidance: unit_cd is important, empty results are common, and users should try changing or omitting unit_cd when no data is returned. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternative schedule or meeting tools, so the selection context remains implied.

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