swiss_parliament_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the API source (OpenParlData API) and coverage scope (74+ parliaments), which adds useful context about what data is accessible. For a read/search tool, this is reasonable disclosure, though it doesn't mention pagination, result ordering, or limits on query format.

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, efficient sentence that captures purpose, content type, scope, and API source with zero padding. Front-loaded with the core function. Every word earns its place.

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 a basic schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and content. It could add result-format expectations (e.g., what fields are returned), but given the simplicity of the tool and sibling context, it is reasonably complete. Not penalized heavily for missing return details absent an output schema.

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 67%, meaning query and parliament have descriptions but limit does not. The description adds the type/scope context but doesn't elaborate on limit semantics or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage; description enhances parliament/query meaning somewhat.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Search Swiss parliamentary business') and enumerates content types (motions, postulates, votes) and scope (74+ cantonal and national parliaments via OpenParlData API). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swiss_parliament_persons, which targets persons rather than business. Could name the sibling explicitly for full differentiation, hence 4.

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 parliamentary business across Switzerland, which is reasonably clear. However, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over swiss_parliament_persons or swiss_federal_law_search, and gives no exclusions or selection criteria among close sibling search tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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