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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by enumerating the returned content and the accepted identifier forms, which matters given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior for invalid references, keeping it at 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?

The when-to-use guidance is front-loaded, and the enumeration of returned content and accepted identifier formats is compact. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from annotations.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the data the dossier returns and the accepted reference forms, and it routes title-only queries to search_parliament. Pagination semantics are handled by the schema, so nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the dossier parameter already documents both accepted formats, and votes_page documents its page size and bounds. The description's examples and the pointer to search_parliament slightly reinforce the dossier parameter but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (get one European Parliament dossier/procedure) and enumerates exactly what the result covers: type, lead committee, rapporteurs, steps, plenary votes, and the Legislative Observatory summary. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_vote or list_votes, which cover votes only.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when the user asks about a single dossier, and names the alternative route: use search_parliament first if only the title is known. The condition that selects search_parliament over this tool is stated outright.

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