Treść wypowiedzi ze stenogramu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema: output is returned in ~12,000-character chunks, implying pagination. It does not say how an agent knows more content remains or that the od parameter continues the read.

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 front-loaded sentence stating what is returned (statement text), in what form (plain text), and at what granularity (12k-character chunks). No filler.

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 5-parameter read tool with an output schema, return values need not be explained. The main remaining gap is the retrieval workflow: the description mentions chunking but never tells the agent to reuse od to fetch subsequent chunks, nor points to wypowiedzi_posiedzenia for obtaining numer.

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 80%, so the schema already documents od, data, numer and kadencja in Polish. The description only implicitly touches the od/pagination parameter via 'w porcjach po 12 tys. znaków' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 verb+resource: fetching the full text of a single Sejm transcript statement, as plain text. The phrase 'jednej wypowiedzi' implicitly contrasts with the sibling wypowiedzi_posiedzenia (which lists statements), though that differentiation lives mainly in the schema's numer description, not in the prose.

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative in the description; usage is only implied by 'jednej wypowiedzi' and the mention of chunking. The cross-reference to wypowiedzi_posiedzenia as the source of the numer value appears only in the parameter schema, not here.

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