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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (talare, parti, datum, utdrag, länk), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about limits, pagination, or ranking behavior beyond the schema's 'n' constraint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and followed by the returned fields. The Swedish/English duplication roughly doubles the length but each version is tight and waste-free.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose and result fields adequately. The only real gaps are the absence of sibling differentiation and any note on result limits or ranking.

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%, so both 'fraga' and 'n' are already documented in the input schema (including the Swedish-language search hint and the max of 10). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (fritextsökning/full-text search) and resource (speeches in the Riksdag chamber) and enumerates what it returns: speaker, party, date, excerpt, link. This clearly separates it from a simple record fetch, but it never names or contrasts the sibling hamta_anforande, which also deals with speeches.

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 implies usage by scoping the search to 'allt som sagts i kammaren', but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., use hamta_anforande to retrieve a specific speech). Guidance is left to inference.

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