get_treaty_business_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it returns 'a list of business items with dates', which is minimal output disclosure, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, whether a valid treaty_id is required (it is, per schema), or what happens for a treaty with no scrutiny business.

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 pipe-delimited keyword list front-loads topic terms, but the third clause ('Get parliamentary business items for treaty scrutiny') largely repeats the first line, and the Args/Returns scaffolding restates what the schema and output schema already carry. Some redundancy dilutes an otherwise short description.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly identifies the resource and its domain. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage it omits the read-only nature and pagination behavior an agent would want before invoking it.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds useful provenance ('alphanumeric string from search results') that the schema lacks, but gives no format example, validation constraints, or failure behavior for an invalid ID.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get parliamentary business items for treaty scrutiny') and scopes it with concrete domain terms (CRaG, debates, treaty progress), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_treaty or search_treaties. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parameter note 'from search results' hints that a treaty must first be found via search_treaties, but the description never says when to use this tool versus get_treaty or get_si_business_items, nor any exclusions.

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