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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the pagination behavior ('follow complete continuation calls') and default ordering behavior, but says nothing about result-size limits or cost of broad queries beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the filter menu and the ordering/continuation instructions, then the sibling handoff. No filler and every clause carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 13 optional parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, ordering, pagination, and the follow-up retrieval tool, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not state default behavior when no parameters are supplied or how filters combine, leaving a minor completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented with semantics such as revision, offset, and session behavior. The description only groups the filter families (words, type, session, committee, party, member IID, dates) at a high level without adding syntax or combination rules, matching the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Swedish parliamentary documents and consolidated SFS statutes) and enumerates the filter dimensions available, so an agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It also names the sibling riksdag_get_document for the status/text follow-up, cleanly separating search from 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?

Gives clear routing: use this to search, then read document status and text with riksdag_get_document, and it explains the relevance-vs-date ordering choice and the continuation workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer riksdag_search_speeches or riksdag_search_members for related content), so there is a small gap.

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