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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return contents (verbatim protocol text plus speaker, party, date and debate). It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid id or any access constraints, so it is informative but not fully transparent.

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 compact sentences with the result content front-loaded and no filler. The Swedish/English duplication is somewhat redundant but brief and serves a bilingual audience, so it costs little.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains what the tool returns and indirectly where the id comes from. The only gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing or error guidance, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents the id format (<dok_id>-<nummer>) and its source tool. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: the verbatim full text of a single chamber speech, and enumerates exactly what it carries (speaker, party, date, debate). The singularity ('one speech', 'ett anförande') naturally distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling sok_anforanden, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 intended usage (retrieve one speech by its id) is clearly implied by the purpose and the required id parameter, but the description never states when to prefer this over sok_anforanden, nor that the id must first be obtained from that search. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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