parlament_get_transcripts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by noting that full-text search can be slow for broad queries, offering performance guidance. It also states it returns 'Auszüge' (excerpts), clarifying the scope of results.

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 very concise, using two sentences plus two short XML elements. It front-loads the core purpose and adds essential usage and performance notes without any extraneous text.

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 an output schema and the description's coverage of use case, performance, and cross-tool synergy, the context is fairly complete. It could mention pagination (offset/limit) more explicitly, but the parameters themselves guide that.

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 itself provides descriptions for parameters like council, keyword, etc. The description adds little beyond the important_notes about limit and narrow terms. With schema coverage at 0% (per context), the description partially compensates but does not explain all parameters in depth.

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' and the resource 'Auszüge aus parlamentarischen Debatten-Transkripten (Amtliches Bulletin)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like parlament_get_votes or parlament_search_business through its specific focus on 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 provides an example scenario for finding specific members' statements on AI, and the important_notes advise on setting limit and narrowing terms for performance. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternative tools (e.g., parlament_search_business) would be more appropriate.

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