search_parliamentary_proceedings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals critical behavioral traits: it returns an empty array when no results match, it covers only Tweede Kamer speeches, and it returns an upgrade notice on the free tier. These specifics help the agent set expectations for both normal and edge-case responses.

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 a compact four-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the primary action and result type. Each subsequent sentence provides valuable context (use cases, scope limits, tier restriction, empty-array behavior) without any redundant phrasing. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (speeches, motions, transcripts, speaker metadata) and how it behaves with no matches. It also addresses coverage limitations and access tiers. This is sufficient context for an agent 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 description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, reiterating that search uses FTS and date filters are available. Since the schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions and examples, the description's contribution is marginal. The added value is limited to confirming that the query is full-text and dates are filters.

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 specific function: searching Dutch parliamentary proceedings from the ParlaMint-NL corpus. It explicitly names the resource (Tweede Kamer/Handelingen) and the types of content returned (floor speeches, motions, debate transcripts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on parliamentary debates rather than legislation or case law.

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 contexts for use, such as understanding legislative intent, political debate context, and parliamentary questions. It also notes important constraints like the professional tier requirement and the exclusion of Eerste Kamer content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, leaving room for a more direct comparative guideline.

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