ori_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as pagination, rate limits, or response format. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 that immediately convey purpose and key usage tips. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Covers the main usage aspects for a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. Could mention pagination behavior or typical result structure, but overall sufficient given the presence of annotations and clear purpose.

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 50% (query and sort have descriptions). The description reinforces the schema by advising 'policy topic keywords' for query and 'sort for recency'. It does not clarify the undocumented 'bestuurslaag' parameter. Adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches Open Raadsinformatie (ORI) for Dutch municipal council documents, motions, and decisions. Distinguishes from sibling tools that cover other Dutch government data sources like official publications (officiele_bekendmakingen_search) or national parliament (tweede_kamer_search).

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?

Provides clear guidance: use policy topic keywords and the sort parameter for recency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings like officiele_bekendmakingen_search or tweede_kamer_search.

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