fedlex_get_open_consultations

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent. The description adds key behavioral details: filtering by eventEndDate >= today in Europe/Zurich, computation of days_remaining and status_conflict, and sorting by shortest remaining deadline. No contradictions.

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 uses XML-like tags and is somewhat verbose. Each section adds value, but the overall structure could be more concise (e.g., merging use_case and important_notes). It is not minimal, but not overly bloated.

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 presence of output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, behavioral logic, and parameter hints adequately. However, it lacks information on rate limits or authentication, though annotations cover safety. Overall, it is fairly complete for the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only briefly mentions topic and keyword in important_notes, but does not describe limit, language, or the date-based filtering criteria. The explanation for keyword is helpful but insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 'Listet aktuell OFFENE Vernehmlassungen des Bundes (Fristen-Monitoring)', specifying verb, resource, and context. The use_case reinforces the purpose of deadline monitoring. This distinguishes it from siblings like fedlex_search_consultations, which likely covers all consultations.

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 important_notes explain filtering logic (by deadline, not status), sorting, and interpretation of empty results. It provides an example and guidance on topic vs keyword. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when to use this tool versus fedlex_get_consultation.

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