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.