search_cytaty

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is ingested nightly at 04:30 UTC from sejm.gov.pl and supports full-text search. This informs the agent about data freshness and scope beyond annotation hints.

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?

Two sentences: first establishes purpose and source, second enumerates filters with examples. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the most critical information. Efficient and scannable.

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?

The description lacks details about return values (e.g., quote text, date, speaker) and does not explicitly mention the limit or category parameters. Given no output schema, this information would help the agent understand result structure and pagination.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples for topic (e.g., 'NFZ', 'Mercosur'), klub (party names), and posel_id range, enhancing understanding beyond schema descriptions. However, category and limit are not mentioned in the description.

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 it searches for politician quotes from specific Polish parliamentary sources (interpelacje, wystąpienia plenarne, komisje) with verified origin. It distinguishes from sibling search tools focused on administration, voting records, or deputies, leaving no ambiguity about its 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 lists filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tool names suggest different domains (e.g., budgets, strikes), the description does not articulate when this search is appropriate or mention any exclusions.

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