search_stadtratsbeschluesse

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing data source (CKAN), data availability (public, from Feb 2025, CC0), and search technique (ILIKE). No contradictions with 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 sections (overview, details, args, returns) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy (multiple paragraphs) and could be more concise while retaining necessary details. The Args section mostly repeats schema info with minor additions.

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 (full-text search with multiple filters and output formatting), the description covers all parameters, explains output fields, and mentions data source and limitations. The existing output schema reduces the need to describe return format in detail, but the description still provides useful context.

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 has descriptions for each nested field, providing baseline coverage. The description adds value by explaining search behavior (case-insensitive, partial matching), giving examples for each parameter, and clarifying output format. This enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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 tool performs a full-text search of Zurich city council decisions (STRB), with optional filters. It distinguishes itself indirectly from siblings like get_beschluesse_by_departement and get_stadtratsbeschluss_detail by focusing on search, but does not explicitly compare. The verb 'Durchsucht' and resource are specific.

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 implies usage for searching titles with flexible matching, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context about data availability and license, but lacks guidance on when not to use or alternative tools for other access patterns.

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