get_preparatory_works

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the return contents (parliamentary documents) and the tier-based behavior (upgrade notice on free tier), which are not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists between description and 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 consists of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, listing return contents, and providing usage context and tier restriction. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant words or filler.

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 read-only tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return content, tier restriction, and recommended use case. It lacks details about pagination or output format, but these are not critical given the annotations and parameter documentation, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptive text, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's mention of document types like MvT and MvA mirrors the schema's document_type examples without adding new information. Thus, the description adds little beyond the schema, supporting a baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get preparatory works ... for a Dutch statute.' It enumerates the exact document types returned (MvT, MvA, nota, amendments), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on a specific statute's documents distinguishes it from similar search tools.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use when you need legislative intent or historical context for a statute.' It also states a key constraint: 'Professional tier only — free tier returns an upgrade notice.' However, it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, falling just short of full guidance.

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