Cerca Parlamentari

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description takes the full burden of informing about behavior. It mentions the ordering by 'indice di forza', inclusion of photo/roles/state, and data source 'Openpolis'. It is not exhaustive (no pagination, rate limits, or error behavior), but these are not essential for a read-only search tool, and the essentials are covered.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the purpose and followed by three short usage examples. Every word is informative, and the most essential information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

As a search tool with an output schema, it does not need to detail return values. It provides all needed valuable context: purpose, examples, and data specifics. It could detail the default for 'solo_attivi', but the schema covers that, so overall this is complete enough.

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 schema has no published descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by stating searching by name and role, which maps to 'testo' and 'ruolo', and the description of 'stato in radius' suggests the ' solo_attivi' parameter. However, it does not explicitly explain each parameter further, leaving some implication to the name of parameters.

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 what the tool does: it searches for parliamentarians by name or role, with specific output features (photo, roles, status). The use cases given ('chi è <nome>', 'lista senatori', 'deputati di <gruppo>') reinforce its purpose and help distinguish it from other non-personal search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like profilo_parlamentare.

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 provides concrete usage scenarios ('chi è', 'lista senatori', 'deputati di <gruppo>'), which clearly indicate when to use the tool. It does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the examples given are sufficient for a typical agent to pick the right tool without confusion.

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