search_glosowania

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return format (list with fields) and the data source (sejm.gov.pl), as well as mentioning a citation source. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or authentication, which are less critical for a read-only tool.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that cover purpose, return format, filters, and source. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a bulleted list might improve readability. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 explains the return fields and source. It covers the main filters and default term. However, it does not specify result ordering or pagination details beyond the limit parameter. Overall, it is fairly complete for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the parameters and their defaults (e.g., term defaults to 10) but adds no new information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 that the tool searches for Sejm voting records, specifying the source (sejm.gov.pl) and the return fields (title, topic, date, vote distribution). The verb 'search' indicates it returns multiple results, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_glosowanie' which likely returns a single voting. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings.

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 implies usage for searching votings by query, topic, or term, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'get_glosowanie' for specific votings. Agents may need to infer usage from the tool name.

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