diet_minutes_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the resource name and filterability, which is largely a restatement of schema properties. No contradictions or additional behavioral notes are provided.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action (full-text search) and resource. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information or repetition. Extremely concise and clear.

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?

For a search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It indicates the tool returns search results from the proceedings archive and lists key filters. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but the schema covers parameter details, and the readOnlyHint ensures agent knows it's safe. Slight gap around result expectations, but adequate for the complexity.

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 has 100% coverage, with each parameter clearly described. The description only reiterates the filterable dimensions (date, house, committee, speaker) that are already in the schema, adding no extra semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('official Japanese Diet proceedings archive'). It differentiates from sibling tools like diet_members_search by focusing on the proceedings archive, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (for searching Diet proceedings) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use diet_members_search for member lookups' or provide guidance on when not to use this tool. Usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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