parlament_search_business

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: case-sensitive OData substringof search, maximum 100 results per call, and pagination via offset. 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 is well-structured with tags for use_case, important_notes, and example. It is concise (around 4 sentences plus tags) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor verbosity from tags but overall effective.

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, the description adequately covers use cases, important technical notes (case sensitivity, pagination), and provides an example. It is complete enough for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 input schema already has detailed descriptions for each parameter (limit, offset, status, etc.), so the description adds minimal additional semantic value. It mentions OData substringof for title search but does not explain each parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 purpose: searching parliamentary business (motions, interpellations, etc.) in German. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parlament_get_business (for single business) and other search/get tools for sessions, transcripts, votes, and members.

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 includes a use_case tag with specific political research topics, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are distinct enough to imply alternatives.

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