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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses that get mode rejects search filters and nondefault paging, that search exposes at most 10000 results, and that pagination should continue with page.next_offset when present. These are concrete behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and mode distinction. Every sentence carries useful information, though it is somewhat dense and could be slightly more concise. Overall structure is logical and efficient.

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 12 parameters, two modes, pagination, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: mode behavior, defaults, result limits, how to continue pagination, and where to find related data (documents, reference codes). No critical gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters in detail. The description mentions some parameter names (term, speech_id, text, title, person_id, activity_type, sitting_date) but adds little beyond what the schema provides. The inter-parameter constraints it mentions (e.g., get rejects search filters, sitting_date_end requires sitting_date) are also covered in the schema. 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 specific verb (search) and resource (speech activities), scopes it to parliamentary terms 9 or 10, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming euparl_search_documents and euparl_list_reference. It also clarifies that text and title search return activity metadata, not transcripts, which further differentiates from document search.

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

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

It clearly describes when to use search mode versus get mode with speech_id, and directs the agent to euparl_search_documents for source files and euparl_list_reference for activity_type codes. It also gives pagination guidance (continue with page.next_offset when present, otherwise narrow filters). No explicit exclusions are given, but the alternatives and conditions are clear.

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