parlament_get_transcript

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

The <important_notes> section discloses non-obvious behavior: the output is capped by max_chars, truncation is signaled by is_excerpt=True, and note/next_offset explain how to load the continuation. It also promises no silent truncation and no summarization, going beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, a <use_case> block, and an <important_notes> block. Every sentence adds functional value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 single-record retrieval tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is fetched, when to use it, and the pagination/truncation contract. No return-value documentation is needed because the output schema exists.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by tying transcript_id to the lookup key and explaining that max_chars caps the response, with is_excerpt/next_offset for continuation. It does not describe the offset parameter directly, but the continuation note implies its role.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Den vollen Wortlaut eines einzelnen Votums nach Transkript-ID abrufen' (retrieve the full wording of a single speech by transcript ID), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the search-oriented siblings. It also names the exact follow-up use case after parlament_search_transcripts.

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 <use_case> section explicitly says to use this after a search with parlament_search_transcripts to get the complete, quotable wording of a specific Votum. It does not list alternative tools or explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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