parlament_get_business

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the 'found=false' return value for invalid IDs and the need for a prior search. This adds useful transparency.

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 concise: a single-line purpose, followed by structured XML tags for use case and important notes. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the input (ID), usage context (post-search), and error behavior (found=false). Since an output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. The description is complete for this tool's purpose.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (business_id and language). The description reinforces the importance of the ID but does not add new semantics for the language parameter. With 0% schema description coverage in the context, the description partially compensates but misses the optional language parameter.

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 verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) and resource 'Details eines parlamentarischen Vorstosses', and the use case distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'parlament_search_business'. It is specific and action-oriented.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: use after a search to get full details, requires the numeric business ID from search, and notes that 'found=false' is returned for unknown IDs. This clearly tells when and how to use the tool.

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