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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the session period ('runs ~Oct–Sep') and the id format ('like "2023-2024"'), which help the agent understand the return value structure.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second adds essential usage context. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations. The description provides the domain (Stortinget), the id format, and the relationship to other tools ('sesjonid'). Together with the annotations, this gives the agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output id format, which is relevant for using the result with other tools. No parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) sessions.' This uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('sessions'), and the mention of session ids and their format distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cases, get_votes, and get_representatives.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use the returned ids as sesjonid for other tools.' This informs the agent when to use this tool (before other session-dependent tools) and why it is the appropriate entry point. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no direct sibling alternative exists, so this is sufficient.

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