germany-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of documents, summaries), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter explanation section. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes scope, the second specifies resource types, and the parameter details provide essential usage context 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining parameter semantics but lacks completeness regarding behavioral aspects and output format. For a search tool, users need to know what kind of results to expect, which isn't addressed.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains 'suchbegriff' as a search term with examples ('Klimaschutz', 'Digitalisierung') and clarifies 'wahlperiode' values (20=current, 19=previous) with the default implied. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches for legislative drafts and proceedings in the German Bundestag, specifying the resources (Drucksachen, parlamentarische Vorgänge). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on parliamentary content, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bundestag_aktivitaeten' which might have overlapping scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'search_german_laws' or 'bundestag_aktivitaeten', nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases beyond the basic function.

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