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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-obvious behavior: texts are 'automatically outlined when several fields exceed the disclosure budget', textFields returns complete fields even when large, and source text/HTML 'remain unchanged'. It stops short of covering error modes or the shape of the returned paging envelope, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and identifier formats, then section selection, then caveats — a sensible priority order. It is dense with semicolon-chained clauses, which costs a little readability but nothing is redundant.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema descriptions, readOnly/idempotent annotations and an output schema, the description closes the remaining gaps: identifier provenance, section choice, paging scope, and the outlining behavior that would otherwise surprise 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description still adds scoping semantics the schema leaves implicit: textFields applies only to texts, limit/offset only to relationships, and the accepted businessId forms.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read a Swiss parliamentary business') and immediately scopes the accepted identifiers (canonical eight-digit businessId or exact published short number). It then enumerates the section modes, which makes it unmistakable against the search/list siblings.

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

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

Gives explicit when-to-use routing per section (overview for metadata/sizes, texts for original text, relationship sections for paged data) and cross-tool guidance ('Use subjects to narrow chparl_search_transcripts'). It also states the constraint that paging applies only to relationships, preventing a common misuse.

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