Riksdag & Regering MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., returns statistical insights, generates reports, or processes text). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or mutative. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying 'analysis' type) to improve utility without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what the output looks like (e.g., structured data, text summary), or behavioral traits. For a tool named 'analyze' with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both 'dateFrom' and 'dateTo' parameters with format details (YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a date range is used for analysis. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 action ('Analysera' meaning 'Analyze') and the resource ('dokument från Regeringskansliet via g0v.se'), with the scope 'per departement' (by department). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_g0v_document_content' or 'search_dokument' by focusing on analysis rather than retrieval or search. However, it doesn't specify what type of analysis is performed (e.g., content summarization, metadata aggregation), leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether documents must be fetched first), compare to siblings like 'summarize_regering_document' or 'batch_fetch_documents', or specify use cases (e.g., for trend analysis). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a batch fetch operation but doesn't describe what 'fetch' entails (e.g., returns metadata, full content, or summaries), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics like rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'fetch' returns, safety, performance) and doesn't compensate for the missing structured fields, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('doktyp', 'riksmoten', 'maxPerRiksmote') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying batch operations across multiple parliamentary sessions, which aligns with the 'riksmoten' array parameter but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or constraints beyond the schema.

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 action ('Batch-hämta' meaning batch fetch) and resource ('dokument för flera riksmöten' meaning documents for multiple parliamentary sessions). It's specific about batch operations and parliamentary sessions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_paginated_documents' or 'get_dokument'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'fetch_paginated_documents' or 'search_dokument', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a search tool but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., document types, formats), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description is too vague to inform the agent about key behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, concise phrase in Swedish. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks detail that would help an AI agent. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, combined search across two government bodies). Every word earns its place, but more context could be beneficial.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search across two government bodies with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the combined results look like, how they're structured, or what categories are included. For a tool with no output schema and behavioral annotations, the description should provide more complete context about the operation and expected results.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a combined search across Parliament and Government sources. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'includeRegeringen' or 'regeringenLimit' affect the combined results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Kombinerad sökning i Riksdagen och Regeringen' (Combined search in the Parliament and Government) states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the verb 'sökning' (search) and resources 'Riksdagen och Regeringen' (Parliament and Government), but doesn't clarify what types of content are searched or how results are combined. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like search_dokument, search_anforanden, or search_regering.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it searches both Parliament and Government sources, but doesn't specify scenarios where this combined approach is preferred over individual searches (e.g., search_dokument for Parliament documents, search_regering for Government documents). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions pagination. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens when 'fetchAll' is true. The description is minimal and misses critical context for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient phrase in Swedish ('Paginerad hämtning av anföranden') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error cases, or how parameters interact (e.g., 'fetchAll' with 'maxPages'). For a complex tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying pagination, which is already clear from parameter names like 'page' and 'pageSize'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Paginerad hämtning av anföranden' (Paginated fetching of speeches/statements) clearly states the action (fetching) and resource (anföranden), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_anforanden' or 'fetch_paginated_documents'. It specifies pagination but lacks detail about what 'anföranden' entails in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_anforanden' or 'fetch_paginated_documents'. The description implies pagination but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameters alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'paginerad hämtning' (paginated fetching) which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits, latency), authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens when 'fetchAll=true' beyond the schema's warning about slowness. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's implied by the name.

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 extremely concise - just three Swedish words. While appropriately sized, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, pagination logic). However, every word earns its place by conveying the core concept of paginated document fetching. The structure is front-loaded but lacks any elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, pagination logic, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of documents are fetched, from what data source, what the return format looks like, or how results are structured. With multiple sibling document tools and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what makes this tool distinct and what to expect from it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Paginerad hämtning av dokument' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fetch_paginated_documents' in Swedish. It doesn't specify what kind of documents, from what source, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_dokument', 'search_dokument', or 'batch_fetch_documents'. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious pagination aspect.

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?

There are no guidelines about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for document retrieval (e.g., 'get_dokument', 'search_dokument', 'batch_fetch_documents'), the description provides zero guidance on context, prerequisites, or differentiation. This leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate use case.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output formats (HTML/JSON) which is useful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the limit parameter is exceeded. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose. While arguably too brief, every word earns its place by conveying the basic action and output formats.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or return values. The mention of HTML/JSON formats is helpful but insufficient given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't mention the required 'report' parameter with its enum values or the optional 'limit' parameter. The schema must carry all parameter documentation burden, and the description adds zero semantic value beyond what's in the structured schema.

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 'Hämta en rapport (HTML/JSON)' states the verb ('Hämta' - fetch) and resource ('rapport' - report), but is vague about scope and format. It mentions HTML/JSON output formats, but doesn't specify what kind of reports or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_reports' or 'get_data_dictionary'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might retrieve similar data (e.g., 'list_reports', 'get_data_dictionary'), but the description provides no context about when this specific fetch_report tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a critical gap.

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?

While concise with a single phrase, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't front-load essential information and wastes its limited space on a tautological restatement of the tool name instead of adding value.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no purpose clarification, no usage guidance, no behavioral context, and no parameter semantics. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and the lack of structured documentation, this description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description provides no information about the 3 parameters (rm, limit, organ). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines types and constraints without explaining what these parameters mean or how they affect the query. The description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Senaste betänkandena' (Swedish for 'Latest reports/opinions') restates the tool name 'get_betankanden' (get reports/opinions) without specifying what action is performed. It's a tautology that doesn't clarify if this fetches, lists, searches, or retrieves these reports, nor what distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dokument or fetch_report.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for fetching documents (e.g., get_dokument, fetch_report, search_dokument), the description offers no context about when this specific tool for 'betänkanden' is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Hämta kalenderhändelser') without any information on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single phrase ('Hämta kalenderhändelser'), which is extremely concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions. It earns a high score for conciseness as it doesn't include unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's domain (e.g., government calendar events), behavioral traits, or output format. While the schema covers most parameters, the overall context for an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool is insufficient, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions for parameters like 'akt', 'org', 'tom', 'from', 'sort', and 'limit' are already informative, and the description doesn't compensate or add further meaning.

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 'Hämta kalenderhändelser' (Get calendar events) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what kind of calendar events (e.g., government, legislative, or general), nor does it distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_g0v_latest_update' or 'fetch_paginated_documents' that might also retrieve time-based data. The purpose is vague beyond the literal translation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various data-fetching functions (e.g., 'get_betankanden', 'get_motioner'), the description fails to clarify if this is for legislative calendars, government schedules, or another specific domain, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('show dataset and field descriptions') but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns a list or detailed view, if it's read-only or has side effects, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very concise—a single phrase in Swedish. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured (e.g., by explaining the output format or usage context). However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the complexity (a metadata tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of datasets with descriptions, detailed field metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Valfritt dataset-ID att filtrera på' meaning optional dataset-ID to filter on). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of dataset IDs or filtering behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Visa dataset och fältbeskrivningar' (Show dataset and field descriptions) states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It indicates the tool displays metadata about datasets and their fields, but doesn't clarify what kind of data dictionary this is (e.g., for government data, statistical data) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_g0v_document_types' or 'get_g0v_category_codes' which might provide similar metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools that might handle metadata or data descriptions. This leaves the agent with no explicit direction on appropriate use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance implications of 'include_full_text', or what details are returned. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide an agent fully.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('dok_id' and 'include_full_text'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of document IDs or implications of including full text. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Hämta' meaning 'Get' or 'Retrieve') and resource ('detaljer om ett specifikt riksdagsdokument' meaning 'details about a specific parliamentary document'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_dokument_innehall' or 'get_g0v_document_content', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_dokument', 'get_dokument_innehall', and 'get_g0v_document_content', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches content and summary, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or output format (e.g., whether the summary is generated or pre-existing). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient phrase in Swedish that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, errors), parameter usage, and output structure, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a context with many sibling 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 50% (only 'dok_id' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that 'dok_id' is needed to fetch content. It does not explain the purpose of 'include_full_text' or how it affects the output. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 'Hämta dokumentinnehåll och sammanfattning' (Fetch document content and summary) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Hämta') and resource ('dokumentinnehåll och sammanfattning'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_dokument' (which likely fetches metadata) by specifying content and summary retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_g0v_document_content' which may serve a similar function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a document ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_dokument' or 'get_g0v_document_content', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description fails to indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any side effects. It provides no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 a single phrase, which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure and does not front-load critical information about the tool's function or usage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 has 2 parameters (rm, limit) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description does not mention these parameters at all, offering no semantic clarification. For a tool with undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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 'Skriftliga frågor' (Swedish for 'Written questions') is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_fragor' (which translates to 'get questions'). It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., list, retrieve, search) or what resource it operates on beyond the vague 'questions'. No distinction from sibling tools is provided.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'get_interpellationer' and 'search_dokument', which might handle similar data, the lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the data source ('via g0v.se') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (a data-fetching tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the returned list contains (e.g., code formats, descriptions), how it's structured, or any usage constraints. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to interpret the results.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action ('Hämta en lista' - 'Get a list') and resource ('kategorikoder från Regeringskansliet' - 'category codes from the Government Offices'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_g0v_document_types' or 'get_data_dictionary', which might also return code-like data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_g0v_document_types' or 'get_data_dictionary' that might serve similar categorization purposes, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions fetching content in Markdown format, which is useful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the URL is invalid. For a tool that interacts with external APIs, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though it could potentially benefit from a brief second sentence about usage context or limitations.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the output format, but lacks important contextual information about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools that would be needed for optimal agent usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'regeringenUrl' as a URI. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the document is from 'Regeringens kansliet' and fetched via g0v.se, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about URL format requirements or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Hämta innehållet' - fetch content) and resource ('ett specifikt dokument från Regeringskansliet'), specifying the output format (Markdown) and source (via g0v.se). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_dokument_innehall' or 'get_regering_document', which appear to serve related purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear related to fetching government documents (e.g., 'get_dokument_innehall', 'get_regering_document', 'fetch_paginated_documents'), the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions fetching a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Hämta'), rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a simple read operation, it's passable but could benefit from more completeness, such as mentioning the return structure or typical use cases.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no additional semantic information is required beyond the schema.

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 action ('Hämta en lista över') and resource ('tillgängliga dokumenttyper från Regeringskansliet'), specifying the source via g0v.se. It distinguishes from siblings like get_dokument or get_propositioner by focusing on document types rather than documents themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_g0v_category_codes, which might be similar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_dokument, get_propositioner, and get_g0v_category_codes, the description doesn't clarify if this is for metadata discovery, filtering purposes, or other contexts. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the source (Regeringskansliet via g0v.se) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, what format the information returns, or whether it's a real-time query versus cached data.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data-fetching tool and front-loads the essential 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is minimal. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context about what 'information' is returned, the format, potential limitations, or how this differs from other government data tools. The agent would need to guess about the return structure and practical usage.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. It focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 verb 'Hämta' (fetch/get) and the resource 'information om senaste uppdateringen' (information about latest update) from a specific source 'Regeringskansliet (via g0v.se)'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_regering_document' or 'fetch_report'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also fetch government data (like get_regering_document, fetch_report, search_regering), there's no indication of when this specific 'latest update' tool is appropriate versus other data retrieval tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits, such as whether this is a read or write operation, what data it returns, error conditions, or performance characteristics. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves.

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?

While the single word 'Interpellationer' is technically concise, it represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks any structure or front-loading of key information, failing to communicate essential details.

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?

Given the complexity of a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools in this government data context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters ('rm' and 'limit'), the description provides no information about parameter meanings, formats, or usage. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving both parameters entirely unexplained.

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 'Interpellationer' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without any verb or action. It provides no information about what the tool does, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_fragor' or 'get_motioner'. This fails to communicate any meaningful purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_fragor' or 'get_motioner', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't specify what kind of details (e.g., personal info, voting records), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), potential limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a context with many similar siblings, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage (one required parameter 'intressent_id' with a clear description). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Hämta detaljer om en ledamot' (Get details about a member) clearly states the verb ('get details') and resource ('member'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_ledamoter' (search members), which might return similar information but with different parameters or scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_ledamoter'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an intressent_id) or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Senaste motionerna', which implies a read operation but gives no information about permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'latest' means (e.g., time frame, sorting). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or any operational context, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving 'rm' and 'limit' completely unexplained. The description adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to clarify what 'rm' represents or how 'limit' affects results.

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 'Senaste motionerna' (Swedish for 'Latest motions') provides a basic purpose but is vague. It restates the tool name 'get_motioner' (get motions) without specifying what 'motions' are in this context or how they differ from similar tools like 'get_propositioner' or 'get_interpellationer'. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for fetching documents (e.g., 'get_propositioner', 'get_dokument', 'search_dokument'), but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format might be.

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 extremely concise (one word), but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's front-loaded with the core concept, it lacks necessary explanatory content to be genuinely helpful.

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 tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the single-word description is completely inadequate. It provides insufficient information for an agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return.

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%, meaning neither parameter (rm, limit) is documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they affect the tool's behavior.

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 'Senaste propositionerna' (Latest propositions) restates the tool name 'get_propositioner' in Swedish, making it tautological. It lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_motioner' or 'get_regering_document' that also fetch government documents.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('Hämta'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when document_id isn't found. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Swedish that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes helpful examples of document types. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about behavioral characteristics, error conditions, or output format. Given the complexity of government document systems and the absence of output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'alla typer' (all types) which aligns with the schema's note about searching all types if not specified, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage or interactions.

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's purpose: 'Hämta regeringsdokument' (Get government documents) with examples of document types. It specifies the verb ('Hämta') and resource ('regeringsdokument'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dokument' or 'get_propositioner' which might overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_propositioner', 'search_dokument', and 'get_dokument_innehall', the description doesn't indicate if this is for specific document retrieval by ID, general searching, or how it differs from other document-fetching tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, its rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it's under-specified and vague, failing to convey meaningful information efficiently. While not verbose, it doesn't earn its place by being helpful.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is poorly documented. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent unsure about behavior, output, or purpose in context with siblings.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully handles the lack of inputs.

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 'Visa enklare status för datakällor' (Show simpler status for data sources) restates the tool name 'get_sync_status' in Swedish without adding specificity. It vaguely indicates it displays status information for data sources but doesn't clarify what 'simpler status' means or what resources are involved, making it tautological rather than informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_g0v_latest_update' or 'list_reports' that might relate to data status, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'kända' (known) means in terms of data freshness or scope. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Lista kända utskott') that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral traits, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets basic needs but doesn't provide rich context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score for tools with no parameters.

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 'Lista kända utskott' clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('kända utskott'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_betankanden' or 'get_motioner', which might also list different types of parliamentary entities, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about what 'kända utskott' entails or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent without explicit or implied usage instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 description implies grouping by 'parti' (party) or 'valkrets' (constituency), which aligns with the 'groupBy' parameter in the schema. However, with 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as hinting at the grouping functionality, but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'rm' or 'punkt'.

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 action ('Hämta' meaning 'Get' or 'Fetch') and the resource ('voteringar grupperade per parti/valkrets' meaning 'votes grouped by party/constituency'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_voteringar' or 'get_voteringar' (if they exist), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'search_voteringar', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('list') without details on output format, pagination, sorting, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, concise phrase in Swedish ('Lista tillgängliga rapporter') that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, which are important for a tool that might return a list of reports. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description feels incomplete for effective use.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, but it doesn't explicitly state the lack of parameters, which could slightly improve clarity.

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 'Lista tillgängliga rapporter' (List available reports) clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'reports', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_report' or 'get_dokument', which could also involve retrieving report-like resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for browsing all reports versus fetching a specific one with 'fetch_report', or how it relates to search tools like 'search_dokument'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (especially critical without an output schema).

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?

While concise with just three words, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The description fails to front-load critical context and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the domain (e.g., Swedish parliamentary speeches), expected return format, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the basic action implied by 'search'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Sök efter anföranden' (Search for speeches) restates the tool name 'search_anforanden' (search_speeches) almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what domain these speeches belong to (e.g., parliamentary proceedings) or how the search operates beyond the basic verb+resource pairing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_paginated_anforanden' or 'search_dokument_fulltext'. The description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no directional help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Sök' (Search) implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though limit parameter suggests pagination), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results are found. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context for a complex search tool.

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 a single, efficient phrase in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (27 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, error conditions, or usage context. For a sophisticated search tool with many filtering options, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use.

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 100%, so all 27 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'Sök efter riksdagsdokument' (Search for parliamentary documents) states the basic purpose with a verb and resource, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like search_dokument_fulltext or search_anforanden. It doesn't specify what kind of search this is (filter-based vs. full-text) or what types of documents it returns.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related siblings (search_dokument_fulltext, search_anforanden, search_regering, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific filter-based search is appropriate versus full-text search or other document retrieval tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (full-text search) without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with no results. This is inadequate for a search tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient phrase in Swedish that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or system context, which are critical for a search tool. The schema covers parameters well, but overall guidance for the agent is insufficient.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'query' (text to search for) and 'limit' (max results, increased from 20 to 50). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Fulltextsök i dokument' (Full-text search in documents) restates the tool name 'search_dokument_fulltext' in Swedish, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what type of documents or system it searches, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_dokument' or 'enhanced_government_search'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_dokument', 'enhanced_government_search', and 'search_regering', the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it's a search tool but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list of members with details), pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. The description adds little beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Swedish that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, search functionality) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., member details, paginated results), error conditions, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'namn' for name search, 'parti' for party). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Sök efter ledamöter i Riksdagen' (Search for members of the Riksdag) clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'members of the Riksdag', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ledamot' (which likely retrieves a specific member) or 'search_anforanden' (which searches speeches), leaving the distinction unclear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_ledamot' (e.g., for specific member lookup) or other search tools like 'search_anforanden', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the data source (g0v.se) but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or any limitations. The context signals show this is a non-trivial tool that needs more complete documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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's purpose: searching documents from the Swedish Government Offices via g0v.se. It specifies the action ('Sök i') and resource ('Regeringingskansliets dokument'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_dokument or search_dokument_fulltext, which appear to have similar functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like search_dokument, search_dokument_fulltext, and enhanced_government_search that appear related, the description offers no context about when this specific search tool is appropriate versus other search options.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Sök' (Search) implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify any behavioral traits: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having a 'limit' parameter), response format, or error conditions. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise - just 4 words in Swedish. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity with 10 parameters and no annotations. Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted for such a feature-rich search tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search result, how results are structured, whether this is a filtered search versus full-text search, or how the 'groupBy' parameter affects output. For a voting search tool in what appears to be a Swedish government data context, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 90% (9 of 10 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide search examples, or clarify the Swedish terminology (like 'rm' for 'Riksmöte' or 'bet' for 'Beteckning') for non-Swedish speaking agents.

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 'Sök efter voteringar och röster' (Search for votes and voting) states the basic purpose - searching for voting records. It uses a specific verb ('Sök') and identifies the resource ('voteringar och röster'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_voting_group' or explain what makes this search tool unique versus other search tools on the server.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple search tools on the server (search_anforanden, search_dokument, search_ledamoter, etc.), but the description doesn't explain when this voting search is appropriate versus other search tools or versus 'get_voting_group'. No context about use cases or prerequisites is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (summarize) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: what format the summary returns (text, structured data), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how it handles different document types. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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?

Extremely concise - a single phrase in parentheses that efficiently conveys the core function. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the essential action. The brevity is appropriate for a straightforward tool with good schema documentation.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the summary output looks like, how document types affect summarization, or operational constraints. The high schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more context about the summarization behavior and results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it works with 'alla typer' (all types), which loosely relates to the 'type' parameter enum. No additional syntax, format details, or usage examples are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('Sammanfatta' - Summarize) and resource ('regeringsdokument' - government documents) with scope ('alla typer' - all types). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_regering_document' (which likely retrieves rather than summarizes) and 'search_regering' (which searches rather than summarizes). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a document ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_dokument_innehall' or 'get_g0v_document_content' that might retrieve document content without summarization.

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