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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context by specifying that results are nested under 'dokumentlista.dokument[]' and that it searches Riksdagen documents, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero filler. It efficiently conveys scope, filters, and result shape without redundancy.

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 the 5 parameters are fully documented in the schema and annotations provide safety guarantees, the description offers a solid overview. It reveals the result nesting but does not mention the Swedish-language requirement explicitly (though the schema example suggests it) or any ordering/sorting defaults. A slightly richer description could fully compensate for the absence of an output schema.

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%, with all five parameters documented in the input schema. The description only restates the filter types (free-text, document type, date range) without adding new parameter-level syntax or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Riksdagen documents') and enumerates document types ('motions, propositions, committee reports, written questions'). It also mentions filtering and the result structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_document (single-document retrieval) and search_within (likely in-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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose and available filters (free-text, document type, date range), giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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