zurich_parliament_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a Markdown list and uses the 'Paris API', but does not elaborate on search scope (only titles, as noted in schema) or limitations. With strong annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line return type. It front-loads the core purpose and key differentiators (school relevance). Every sentence serves a purpose without extraneous language.

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 low complexity of a search tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It specifies the return format (Markdown) and the type of results. However, it omits details like pagination or result limits (though max_results in schema covers that). Slight room for improvement in describing the search scope (only title vs. full text).

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 provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., query with examples, format enum, year range filters, department filter), so schema coverage is high. The tool description does not repeat or add to these parameter-level details, but the schema itself is sufficient. Thus, the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches 'Geschäfte des Gemeinderats' (city council business) and lists specific types (Interpellationen, Motionen, Postulate, Anfragen). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_stadtratsbeschluesse for executive decisions) by targeting parliamentary motions. The connection to school topics via SSD provides additional context.

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 mentions usefulness for school topics because many items relate to the Schul- und Sportdepartement, which helps agents decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like search_stadtratsbeschluesse, leaving some ambiguity.

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