get_representative_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It says the tool 'provides' a report, which implies a read/compute operation without side effects, and it enumerates report contents. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or describe behaviors like caching, rate limits, or failure handling.

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 and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then lists report components, then documents the parameter with an example. There is no redundant restatement of schema information.

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 one-parameter report tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what the report contains, and what input is required. It does not discuss not-found or error behavior, but the output schema covers return structure, so nothing essential for tool selection is missing.

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 input schema only defines member_name as a string, so the description's '국회의원 성명 (예: "추경호")' adds essential semantic meaning and a concrete example. It could additionally explain exact-name matching or disambiguation, but for the single parameter the description is 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 clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive legislative activity report for a specific National Assembly member and lists the exact content areas included. The phrase '한 번에 제공합니다' distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_member_info or get_member_voting_history.

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 use when a consolidated overview of a member's activities is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or exclude cases like looking up a single voting history. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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