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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the return-mode behavior that annotations cannot express: metadata by default, full original passages with includeText, and full text when transcriptId is supplied. It also discloses the language caveat that metadata language never translates speaker text and that missing LanguageOfText stays unknown. It says nothing about failure modes or rate behavior, so not a 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the admission constraint before secondary details like the 20-subject cap and pagination. Some clauses are densely packed and slightly cryptic ('missing LanguageOfText remains unknown'), but no sentence is 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?

For a 13-parameter, zero-required tool with complex conditional constraints, the description covers admission rules, text-search preconditions, output-shape toggles, language caveats, and pagination. Return field details are rightly left to the output schema. Only error/edge behavior is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by articulating a one-of constraint the schema does not encode (required: 0) — at least one of business, subject, speaker, session, or date bound — and by pairing query with the 31-day window. It also flags the includeText default inversion for transcriptId, though much of that is duplicated in the 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 first sentence names a specific verb (Find) and resource (Amtliches Bulletin passages) plus the full set of filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as chparl_search_business or chparl_get_votes, which are not about retrieving passage text.

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 states the minimum viable call ('Supply at least a business, subject, speaker, session, or date bound'), the extra precondition for text queries (sessionId or a closed range of at most 31 calendar days), and a concrete alternative path (select subjectId via chparl_get_business when a business has more than 20 subjects). It also closes the loop on follow-up calls ('Follow nextOffset with unchanged filters').

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