search_hearings

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns only hearing metadata (not full transcripts), mentions potential limitations of nominee_name filtering, and explains the return fields. This is comprehensive for a read operation.

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 lengthy due to bilingual content and detailed explanations, but it is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns). Some redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains effective and informative.

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?

Given the number of parameters (6) and absence of annotations, the description covers all input parameters, return fields, usage scenarios, and even suggests alternative tools. It is comprehensive and leaves no critical gaps.

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 0%, but the 'Args' section in the description explains each parameter in detail, including required status, defaults, usage context, and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 queries National Assembly hearings, specifying two types (confirmation and public) and their purposes. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like query_assembly by providing an alternative for filtering issues.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each hearing type and filter by nominee_name or committee. Includes a fallback instruction: if nominee_name filtering fails, use query_assembly directly. This helps the agent choose the appropriate tool.

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