Riksdag & Regering MCP

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, return structure, pagination, rate limits, or what 'analyze' entails. The tool could be read-only, but this is not stated. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the resource and grouping.

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, front-loaded sentence in Swedish. It wastes no words and quickly conveys the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits valuable context, which slightly detracts from its structure as a complete specification.

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?

With only two optional date parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to provide more context about what the analysis returns, how 'by department' is determined, and how this differs from nearby tools. The description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively in selecting or invoking this tool.

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 describes both parameters (dateFrom and dateTo) with date format hints, achieving 100% coverage. Therefore, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it also does not need to since the schema already covers them adequately.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Analysera dokument från Regeringskansliet (via g0v.se) per departement'. This clearly identifies the tool's function as analyzing government documents grouped by department, and the name reinforces this. However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the 'analysis', making it less precise than it could be.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like search_regering, get_regering_document, and summarize_regering_document exist, but the description does not mention them or state any exclusions. The only implied usage is via the name (department-based analysis), but that is not sufficient.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives no insight into pagination, rate limits, potential large result sets, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a batch 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 with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is concise in length but lacks the structural elaboration needed to meaningfully support agent decision-making.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior and usage context. It neither describes what the response looks like nor provides usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with basic meanings (doktyp, riksmoten, maxPerRiksmote). The description aligns with the schema but adds no additional nuance beyond what is already provided in the input 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-fetch) and the resource (documents for multiple parliamentary sessions), which distinguishes it from single-document tools like get_dokument. It is specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling 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 like fetch_paginated_documents or search_dokument. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that results are combined from two sources; no information about pagination, response format, or how includeRegeringen affects behavior is given.

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, focused sentence with no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and return information.

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 parameter descriptions for query, limit, regeringenLimit, and includeRegeringen. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a combined search across Riksdagen and Regeringen, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_regering or search_dokument which target single sources.

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 phrase 'Kombinerad sökning' implies use when both Riksdag and Government results are needed, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusions 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's basic function. It does not explain pagination mechanics, filtering capabilities, fetchAll behavior, or the response format, leaving agents without critical 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?

The description is brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, a single phrase is not appropriately sized.

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?

The description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It lacks information about return values, pagination behavior, filtering options, or any contextual details needed to use the tool effectively. No output schema exists to compensate for this gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not explain how parameters like fetchAll, maxPages, or pageSize interact or relate to 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 'Paginerad hämtning av anföranden' is a direct Swedish translation of the tool name 'fetch_paginated_anforanden', essentially restating it. It provides no additional meaning or differentiation from sibling tools like search_anforanden.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention search_anforanden, get_dokument, or any other sibling, nor does it provide any use-case context.

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. It only mentions pagination but does not explain return format, performance implications (e.g., fetchAll slowness), or how results are ordered. The schema hints at these but the description itself is uninformative.

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 short and directly to the point. However, it is more of a label than a structured sentence, and for a tool with seven parameters and complex pagination behavior, it feels underspecified rather than efficiently 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?

With no output schema and many sibling tools, the description should clarify what this tool does and what it returns. It merely restates the tool's name in Swedish, providing no context about data scope, filters, or result structure. This is inadequate for correct tool selection.

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 parameter descriptions provide 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, but the schema is thorough, so no deduction is needed.

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 'Paginated retrieval of documents' clearly states the verb and resource, and the pagination aspect is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like batch_fetch_documents or search_dokument, which also deal with document retrieval.

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 such as batch_fetch_documents or search_dokument. The description is a single phrase with no context about appropriate 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions output formats (HTML/JSON) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, pagination behavior, or that limit controls row count. The description is too minimal for a tool with undocumented 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 a single sentence with no filler words. It includes the essential action and output format, making it highly concise and front-loaded, though at the cost of 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?

The tool has two parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description is too brief to cover prerequisites, how the report is identified, or behavior of the limit parameter. It fails to provide a complete picture for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'report' enum values or the 'limit' parameter. It merely repeats the word 'rapport', adding no semantic meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 states a clear verb ('Hämta') and resource ('rapport'), and adds format info (HTML/JSON). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_reports, and the format mention is ambiguous as no format parameter exists.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to list_reports or other report-related tools. It simply says 'get a report'.

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?

The description discloses no behavioral traits. There are no annotations, and the description does not mention pagination, ordering, filtering, or any side effects. It is entirely silent on how the tool behaves or what it returns.

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 short ('Senaste betankandena'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure or a complete sentence, and while brevity is good, the absence of essential information makes it ineffective. It is more of a title than a description.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description must compensate for this lack of structured information, but it does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, or when to use it. It is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 three parameters (rm, limit, organ) with zero description coverage. The description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean, valid values, or how they affect results. The agent is left with no semantic information beyond the raw parameter names.

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 betankandena' translates to 'Latest committee reports', which restates the tool name ('get_betankanden') with an added 'latest' qualifier. It lacks a verb and does not clearly state that this tool retrieves a list of committee reports, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like list_reports 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. It is merely a noun phrase with no instructional content.

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 'fetch' implying a read operation, but does not describe return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and no 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?

The description is extremely concise at a single short sentence, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, but it omits necessary context. This is more under-specification than effective 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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides only a bare statement of purpose. It does not explain what the calendar events are, how parameters interact, what the response looks like, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters but the overall context is incomplete.

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 83%, so the input schema already documents most parameters with meaningful explanations. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because 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 'Hämta kalenderhändelser' clearly identifies the resource (calendar events) and the action (fetch). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling get_* tools, which would require mention of specific scoping or context. It is clear but lacks 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is just a single phrase with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or typical 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'show dataset and field descriptions.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether authentication is needed, or how the optional filter affects the output.

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 (three words in Swedish) and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about the exact return structure and whether the filter is applied to datasets, fields, or both, which a slightly richer explanation could resolve.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, describing it as 'Valfritt dataset-ID att filtrera på' (optional dataset ID to filter on). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Visa' = show) and resource ('dataset och fältbeskrivningar' = dataset and field descriptions), clearly conveying a metadata retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, but the name and content make the function reasonably clear.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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 fetching details but does not disclose potential response size, required permissions, or how include_full_text affects behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what kind of details are returned, but it only says 'detaljer' without elaboration. The tool's behavior and return value remain underspecified.

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% for both parameters, so they are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter context, keeping the score at 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 clearly states the action ('Hämta detaljer') and resource ('ett specifikt riksdagsdokument'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_dokument_innehall, which could overlap in intended 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 such as search_dokument or get_dokument_innehall. It only describes what the tool does, not when it should be preferred.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'content and summary' but fails to explain key behaviors such as the default exclusion of full text (since 'include_full_text' defaults to false), what the summary entails, or error handling. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. A single phrase without additional structure or context is not appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, leaving the agent without 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?

The tool has only two parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not address what 'summary' means, how to request full content, the return format, or any limitations. Given the many overlapping sibling tools, this description is insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 does not explain either parameter. While the schema describes 'dok_id' as 'Dokument ID', 'include_full_text' lacks a description, and the tool description does not clarify its meaning or effect. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no compensatory detail.

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 retrieves document content and summary ('Hämta dokumentinnehåll och sammanfattning'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_dokument' or 'get_g0v_document_content', which may perform 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning any use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to similar sibling tools such as 'fetch_paginated_documents' or 'search_dokument'.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It offers no behavioral information such as read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or return format. The phrase 'Written questions' only hints at the subject matter, not the tool's behavior.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential operational 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?

With two parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention filtering, limits, or what data will be returned, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'rm' or 'limit'. Since the description is minimal, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 noun phrase that names the resource but does not state the action (e.g., retrieve, list, fetch). It provides minimal differentiation from siblings like get_interpellationer, but lacks a clear verb+resource structure.

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 gives no context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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. 'Hämta' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety or return format (e.g., whether it returns a simple array or requires pagination). It adds no context beyond the basic purpose, leaving the agent without information about potential side effects or response structure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter 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 low complexity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what a 'category code' is, how the list is structured, or whether it is static or dynamic. With siblings like get_data_dictionary, additional context on scope would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'category codes' clarifies what the tool returns, which is relevant to understanding the output context.

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 function with a specific verb ('Hämta' - fetch) and a specific resource ('kategorikoder från Regeringskansliet' - category codes from the Government Office). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_g0v_document_types by focusing on category codes rather than document types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage ('when you need category codes') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. For a simple list-retrieval tool, the implied usage is sufficient for a basic understanding, but lacks explicit differentiation from related siblings.

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 present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output format (Markdown) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, prerequisites, error conditions, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool without annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. No unnecessary words or details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity and that the schema covers the parameter fully, the description is largely complete for a straightforward fetch operation. However, the lack of usage context and behavioral expectations, especially with no annotations, leaves gaps that mislead an agent trying to select this tool among many 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 already provides a detailed description of 'regeringenUrl' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states it fetches the content of a specific document from Regeringskansliet via g0v.se in Markdown format. It uses a specific verb ('Hämta'), resource ('innehållet i ett specifikt dokument'), and scope, distinguishing it from siblings by mentioning the g0v.se source and Markdown output.

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 such as get_dokument_innehall or get_regering_document. The description only states what it does, without any context or exclusions.

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 the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source ('Regeringskansliet via g0v.se') but gives no details on the output format, ordering, or whether the list covers all document types or is filtered. For a simple read-only list tool, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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, clear sentence in Swedish, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the returned list contains. It says 'en lista över tillgängliga dokumenttyper' (a list of available document types), but does not specify whether these are strings, objects, or how they map to other tools. This is a minor but real gap for a data-fetching tool.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no potential confusion about 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a list of available document types from the Government Offices (Regeringskansliet) via g0v.se. It uses a specific verb ('Hämta' = get) and identifies the resource (document types) and source, which distinguishes it from other sibling tools like category codes or document content.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as get_g0v_category_codes, which could confuse an agent selecting among similar list-type 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. The verb 'Hämta' (get) and 'information' clearly imply a read-only operation, and 'via g0v.se' indicates an external data source. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds some context beyond the name but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and fully captures the tool's function without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable amount of context. It names the source (g0v.se) and the general subject (latest update from Regeringskansliet). However, it could be more specific about what the 'update' entails (e.g., what data fields are returned) since there's no output schema to fill that gap. Still, for a low-complexity tool, it's mostly complete.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about arguments.

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 uses a specific verb 'Hämta' (get) and a clear resource 'senaste uppdateringen från Regeringskansliet' (latest update from the Government Offices). It also notes the source 'via g0v.se', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sync_status. However, it doesn't specify what type of update is being retrieved, so it's slightly vague but still clear.

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 any conditions, intended use cases, or exclusion criteria. The sibling list includes similar tools such as get_g0v_document_content and get_sync_status, but the description doesn't help differentiate when this tool should be preferred.

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 disclosing behavior. It discloses nothing: no mention of side effects, return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or the fact that this is a read operation. The agent cannot infer any behavioral traits beyond the name itself.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only a single word and conveys no actionable information; it does not front-load any useful content and fails to earn its place as a tool description.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about behavior, expected output, or parameter semantics. This is wholly inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the need to distinguish it from many similar 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. 'rm' remains completely unexplained, and 'limit' only has numeric constraints from the schema. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it impossible to know what these parameters represent.

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 one-word noun that simply names the resource rather than stating an action. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., fetch, list, search) and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools like get_fragor or get_motioner, making it effectively a tautology of the name.

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 such as get_fragor, get_motioner, or search_anforanden. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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. It only says 'Hämta detaljer' and does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or how errors are handled.

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 with no redundant words, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what 'detaljer' include, how to obtain the intressent_id, or what the response might look like. A simple get-by-id tool still benefits from additional context about its expected behavior.

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 fully describes the intressent_id parameter with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 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 'Hämta detaljer om en ledamot' clearly states the action (get) and resource (member), with 'detaljer' specifying the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_ledamoter by implying a direct ID-based lookup rather than a search, but it does not explicitly name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_ledamoter. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Senaste motionerna' is merely a noun phrase and reveals nothing about whether this is a read operation, what it returns, pagination, or any side effects. This is as sparse as the 'Process' example that scored 1.

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 brief, but brevity without substance is under-specification. Two words do not constitute a structured explanation, and the description fails to earn its place by omitting 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and overall behavior. It does neither. The tool is effectively opaque, providing no way for an agent to know what to expect or how to invoke 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 0%, and the description does not compensate. 'rm' and 'limit' remain unexplained. The agent cannot infer their meaning or how they affect results. No baseline is possible since parameters exist and are 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 motionerna' (Latest motions) identifies a resource but lacks an explicit verb or action. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_interpellationer or get_propositioner, which also target document types. A clearer phrasing like 'Fetch the latest motions' would improve clarity.

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 usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of optional parameters. An agent has no guidance on selecting this 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?

There are no annotations to disclose safety or side effects, and the description provides no behavioral details. It does not explain what 'senaste' means (e.g., ordering by date, default limit), whether filtering by 'rm' is supported, or what the response contains. The tool name and description imply a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 short, which is concise, but it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence with a verb. It conveys the core purpose but omits necessary context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, parameter effects, default behaviors, or any limitations, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter ('rm' or 'limit'). The schema provides only type constraints (string, number with min/max), leaving the semantics of both parameters completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for this gap.

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) clearly identifies the resource (propositions) and the scope (latest), which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_motioner and get_betankanden. However, it lacks a verb indicating the action (e.g., fetch, list), relying on the tool name 'get_' to convey the operation.

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 does not mention related tools, such as get_motioner or get_interpellationer, nor any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

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 the full burden, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing document types. It does not state return format, content vs. metadata, error behavior, or required permissions.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain return values, content type, or any side effects. For an agent choosing among several document-related siblings, this is incomplete.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (document_id and type) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond reiterating the type list, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves government documents of all types, using a specific verb ('Hämta') and resource ('regeringsdokument'). It lists example types but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dokument or get_propositioner. It only describes the function, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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 disclosing behavior. It merely states 'show status' without revealing whether it is read-only, what the status contains, whether it triggers any actions, or what the response format is. This is a significant transparency 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 extremely short and contains no filler, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. The phrasing 'visa enklare status' is awkward and could be more direct. While it is not verbose, it lacks the substance needed for adequate communication.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description must clarify what the tool actually returns or what 'status' means. It does not explain what 'datakällor' refers to or what a 'simpler status' entails. The invocation is trivial due to no parameters, but the tool's output and meaning remain underspecified.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description is not required to explain parameters. The lack of parameters is clearly indicated in the schema, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 states the verb 'visa' (show) and the resource 'datakällor' (data sources), indicating it displays status. However, 'enklare status' (simpler/simplified status) is vague and does not clearly specify what aspect of status is shown or how it is simplified. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings, though no sibling directly overlaps.

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 any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The reader is left to infer that it is a status-check tool, but there is no explicit 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 present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose details such as whether the list is cached, ordered, or covers historical vs. current committees. It adds a minimal behavioral scope ('known') but no deeper 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 a single front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant text. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema, the agent gets no information about the shape or contents of the returned data. A sentence noting that it returns committee identifiers/names or that these are the standing parliamentary committees would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty property set, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameters, and it does not introduce any conflicting information.

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 specifies the action (list) and resource (known committees), making the tool's core purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_betankanden, but the resource term is specific enough.

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 choose this tool over siblings such as get_betankanden or get_voting_group, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is 'when you need a list of committees,' which is insufficient.

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 mentions grouping, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, any pagination or rate limits, return format, or side effects. The limited detail falls short for a tool with no other behavioral 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is straightforward. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return values, how grouping interacts with the groupBy parameter, or any constraints. Given sibling tools, it could benefit from clarifying its distinction from search_voteringar.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's reference to grouping by parti/valkrets aligns with the groupBy enum but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameters like rm, bet, 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 'Hämta voteringar grupperade per parti/valkrets' clearly states the action (fetch), resource (voteringar), and grouping scope (per party/constituency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_voteringar, though it does not explicitly name 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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 is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It states only that it lists reports, but does not clarify whether it returns full content, metadata, pagination behavior, or any access restrictions. This is minimal for a read-only tool and lacks useful behavioral context beyond 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 a single, concise phrase with no unnecessary words. It is immediately readable and front-loaded with the verb, making it efficiently structured. It earns a high score for being appropriately sized and free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description provides no information about return values, data format, or report categories. For a list tool, one might expect at least a mention of what kind of reports are included or how results are presented. The description is minimal and leaves significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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 zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4 according to the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and the empty schema already confirms this. The description adds no extra semantic value regarding parameters, but none is required.

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' translates to 'List available reports', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('reports'). It clearly indicates the tool's function and is distinct from sibling 'fetch_report' which retrieves a specific report, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_report' or 'search_dokument'. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to select it.

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 disclose behavioral traits. 'Sök efter anföranden' only implies a read-only search, but does not mention pagination, result format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 only three words and is technically concise, but it is under-specified. While there is no wasted text, the lack of structural detail or additional context makes it insufficiently informative.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a three-word description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain search semantics, result ordering, or pagination, making it inadequate 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 schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions like 'Riksmöte' and 'Text att söka i anförandet', so the description need not repeat them. However, the explanation adds no additional meaning beyond these brief parameter descriptions, and the parameter descriptions themselves are terse.

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' clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'anföranden' (speeches), which distinguishes it from generic document searches. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_dokument, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 such as search_dokument or search_dokument_fulltext. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate search 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 present, so the description alone must convey behavior. It only states a generic search function. It does not disclose pagination limits, default sorting, filtering behavior, or any other operational traits. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 short phrase—with no filler words. However, it is under-specifying for a tool with 27 parameters. While it is front-loaded, it does not provide sufficient information to justify this brevity.

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 high complexity (27 parameters) and no output schema, the one-line description is severely inadequate. It explains neither the search semantics, result format, nor usage context. The parameter schema helps but cannot compensate for the lack of tool-level guidance.

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 covers all 27 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-related value, but it does not need to compensate given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Sök efter riksdagsdokument' (Search for riksdag documents). It is specific about the action and object. However, it does not distinguish itself from multiple sibling search tools like search_dokument_fulltext or search_anforanden, which also search document-related data.

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 several sibling search tools (e.g., search_dokument_fulltext, search_anforanden) with no differentiation. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'full-text search' without revealing pagination, sorting, result format, or other behavioral traits. It is not misleading, but severely incomplete.

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 that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. For a simple search tool, this brevity is effective, though it sacrifices richness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description gives no information about return values or usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the overall picture is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (query and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' clearly specifies a full-text search over documents, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_dokument' by implying a more exhaustive text-based search, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling search tools such as 'search_dokument' or 'enhanced_government_search'. The description provides no context, exclusions, or 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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, filtering options, return format, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. It is minimally transparent.

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, compact sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the core purpose and earns its place, though its brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

With seven optional filter parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits available filters, result handling, and comparisons with sibling tools, leaving a significant informational gap for the 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the schema fully documents parameter meanings. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, which aligns with 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 ledamöter i Riksdagen' clearly states the tool's function: searching for members of the Riksdag, using the verb 'sök' and the resource 'ledamöter'. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ledamot or search_anforanden.

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 such as get_ledamot (single member retrieval) or search_anforanden (speeches). It does not mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches documents, but does not describe the output format, pagination, rate limits, or whether the search covers full text or metadata. This is a significant transparency gap for a 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, succinct sentence in Swedish, which is appropriately brief. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks essential context such as the tool's unique scope, expected output, or relationship to other search tools. With no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to integrate the tool.

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 already provides thorough descriptions for all six parameters, including values and defaults (e.g., limit), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's 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 clearly states the action (search) and resource (Government Offices' documents), and specifies the source via g0v.se. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling search tools like search_dokument or enhanced_government_search, which likely perform 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. No mention of appropriate use cases, alternatives, or exclusions 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention grouping behavior, limit handling, filtering semantics, or any other operational traits. The groupBy parameter in the schema hints at behavior, but the description itself discloses nothing beyond the basic activity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no fluff. It is efficient and easy to parse, though arguably too terse to be fully informative.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description provides only a basic purpose and does not explain how to build queries, what grouping does, or what to expect in the response. The schema covers parameter names but not the overall usage context, leaving a significant gap for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the input schema already explains most parameters. The tool description adds no parameter information, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' clearly states the action (search) and the resource (voting records and votes). It communicates the tool's purpose effectively, though it does not differentiate it from sibling search tools like search_dokument or search_anforanden beyond the resource name.

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, no mention of typical use cases, and no exclusions or alternative tool pointers. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other search_* 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 must carry the full burden. It only exposes the intended action ('Sammanfatta') but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, failure modes, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical '(alla typer)' adds scope. It is concise and not verbose, but it repeats the tool's name in Swedish, offering limited new 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the summary output, how to handle missing document IDs, or what distinguishes this from simply fetching document content. The tool's 3-parameter schema is poorly complemented by this minimal description.

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 (type, max_length, document_id) already described. The description adds little beyond the schema, except 'alla typer' which merely restates the enum's scope. Baseline 3 applies due to 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 'Sammanfatta regeringsdokument (alla typer)' clearly states the action (summarize) and resource (government documents), and 'alla typer' distinguishes it from type-specific tools like get_propositioner. However, it doesn't specify the output format or how the summary is produced, so it falls short of a 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_regering_document or get_dokument_innehall. The description lacks any when/when-not context or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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