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

Annotations cover read-only and closed-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits the annotations cannot carry: results are alphabetical and never ranked, the index is incomplete, and a missing party is not a relevance signal. It does not state result counts or any coverage boundary beyond 'not complete yet', so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, return contents, how to use the output, and the ordering/completeness caveat. The scoping statement is front-loaded with no preamble or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does the work the missing output schema would: it enumerates the link types returned and warns about incompleteness and non-ranking. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 100% and the parameter's description already explains that omitting it lists all parties with a concrete example. The description adds no extra semantics about the 'name' argument (matching, spelling, aliases), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find what Norwegian parties say themselves, from their own pages) and enumerates the artifacts returned: website links, party programme, policy pages, machine-readable files. The domain is plainly distinct from the sibling lookup tools, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('For political questions') plus concrete usage instructions — read the programme/policy pages, present each party's view in its own words with a source link, do not take sides. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, so it falls short of a 5.

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