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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a hard cap of 15 results, that results carry ids and epvotes.com urls, and that matching is word-based against titles and names. It stops short of describing ranking or what happens on an empty/ambiguous result set.

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, front-loaded with the use condition, then result shape, then match syntax, then the exclusion. No filler; each sentence contributes a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by stating the result count cap and the id/url payload, and by handing off to the get_* tools. For a 2-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns credit by adding concrete query semantics with examples spanning each record type ('digital euro', 'Metsola', 'ECON', '2023/0212(COD)'), and by implying the type enum's practical use. It does not explain the 'any' default's behavior versus explicit typing.

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?

Specific verb (find/search) plus a precisely enumerated resource set (dossier, MEP, committee, group, document), with the key differentiator stated: 'you do not know its id yet'. This cleanly separates it from get_dossier and get_mep, which the description names.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition (id unknown), an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Do not use it for votes of a day; use list_votes'), and a follow-up path ('pass an id to get_dossier or get_mep next'). Routing is fully spelled out.

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