Read a Congress debate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: documents run to hundreds of pages and first access downloads up to 60 MB taking a few seconds, which explains latency and why paging is required.

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?

A single compact paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational warning attached at the end. Efficient, though the parenthetical detail about PDF size slightly crowds the purpose statement.

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 no output schema, the description does enough: it identifies the document type, identifier format, paging approach and the download cost. The one gap is that max_chars behavior and the default page window remain unexplained.

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 75% and the description reinforces the page-range model and the numero format. However, max_chars is undocumented in both schema and description, and no extra syntax or defaulting guidance is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Reads) and resource (record of a sitting, 'compte rendu des débats') with the identifier format, and the extraction mechanism (official PDF by page range). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like leginova_get_jonc or leginova_get_jurisprudence, which cover different document types.

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 closing instruction 'read them page range by page range' gives implied usage guidance driven by document size, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as leginova_search or leginova_browse, and no exclusions.

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