de_dip_search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the scope of parliamentary documents and the API key rotation mechanism, which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds key details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple resource types, pagination, API key), the description covers essential behavioral context. The presence of a detailed input schema and output schema means the description does not need to explain return values or all parameters, leaving it optimally complete.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the types of documents and their legislative significance, which helps the agent select appropriate parameter values beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 the Bundestag DIP, Germany's official parliamentary documentation, and specifies covered content: Drucksachen, plenary transcripts, and legislative procedures. This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like de_dip_get_document.

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 the default API key and override method, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on tool name and siblings.

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