search_poslowie

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds concrete return fields (e.g., attendance_pct) and cites a data source (strajkpolski.org/poslowie), providing context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first lists the tool's function and output, the second provides a source citation. No redundancy, and critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 covers the tool's purpose, key return fields, and data source. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (how to use limit/offset) and response structure when no results. Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'filters' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema details for woj, klub, limit, offset. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists 460 members of the Polish parliament with filters and specifies the returned fields (name, surname, club, district, voivodeship, email, attendance). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like get_posel (single member) or search_administracja.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_posel or search_glosowania. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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