Parlamentarne grupy bilateralne

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the entity is and that member records include both deputies and senators, but discloses nothing further about permissions, rate limits, or result size. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the resource and the example, then states both retrieval modes. No wasted words, though the parenthetical example and dual-mode clause make it slightly dense.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It captures the entity, the search field, and the member-inclusive mode, leaving little an agent would need beyond structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (id, fraza, kadencja, dawniCzlonkowie) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only a light gloss (search by name, members on lookup) that maps to those fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (Polish-foreign parliamentary groups) with a concrete example, and clearly distinguishes its two operating modes: a searchable list vs a single group with its members (deputies and senators). It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the two modes (list-with-name-search vs one-group-with-members) hint at how parameters select behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling tools for parliamentary data.

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