fedlex_search_consultations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false; description adds behavioral details like status derivation, runtime days_remaining, and filter semantics (e.g., topic is a keyword union). 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?

Description is front-loaded with main purpose, then uses structured tags (<use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>) to concisely convey usage, filters, and example, with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (multiple filters, derived fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers use case, filters, behavior, and alternatives, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description explains each filter (topic, keyword, status, dates, institution) and their semantics (e.g., status derived, days_remaining). Adds value beyond the schema's type constraints.

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?

Description clearly states 'Volltextsuche über Vernehmlassungen' (full-text search over consultations) with filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fedlex_search_laws and explicitly calling out the alternative fedlex_get_open_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?

Description provides explicit use case (pre-parliamentary research), when to use (with filters), and when not to (pure deadline monitoring, refer to fedlex_get_open_consultations). Also explains derived status and days_remaining.

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